(Again, full disclosure, even though I've touched on this before: PPACA does not force employers to offer birth control to their workers. The law forces employers to offer a minimum level of coverage. Sebelius and friends just decided that minimum should include contraception.)

In the meantime, for-profit companies have filed 46 suits against the legislation – with nonprofits filing another 48 cases – all of which challenge the law's constitutionality one way or another.

But it's a few other cases – products of political crusades rather than economic ones – creeping up through the legal pipeline that might present an even larger threat. Especially if you believe the hand-wringers at the New York Times.

The latest wave of suits primarily fall into two camps: one, whether the Internal Revenue Service has the authority to issue either tax credits or subsidies for those not enrolling in the states exchanges; and two, whether the administration's never-ending tinkering with the law, whether it's a delay, a waiver or an outright reversal, is legal.

As a onetime wannabe law student, I find these cases arguing over finer points endlessly fascinating from an academic perspective. But in the cold light of day, they rarely do little more than hand over taxpayer money to lawyers.

Is it frustrating as hell that the president – and by extension, his team – keep screwing with the law? Absolutely, but executive privilege affords the White House an incredible amount of leeway. I can't see the Roberts court voting against that.

The IRS question is slightly more compelling, because according to the letter of the law, consumers enrolling in state exchanges are the only ones eligible for subsidies. At the time, lawmakers had every expectation each state would run its own exchange. The whole federal marketplace was only supposed to be the back-up plan.

But as we all know now, Red states across the board rejected the idea, instead eagerly inviting the feds in to run their exchanges. So take the subsidy out of the federal exchange equation and you suddenly kick a lot of people out of the game.

Again, it's interesting, but I think it's ultimately a doomed enterprise. It's kind of like acquitting the mob boss of racketeering because all of the witnesses against him turned up dead.

The intent of the law – regardless of how it's written – was for everyone to have a shot at a subsidy, no matter what your governor thought of the law. But the courts have overturned laws over less egregious errors.

So much for stability.