As to your "impeachment" comment, I think this is naive thinking and one that I believe you're far to smart to believe is sincere in being presented. First, simply having an action overturned isn't necessarily grounds for impeachment, as it's still highly questionable if such an action is a willful disregard of the constitution or rather they BELIEVE they are acting in accordance with it but once challenged by law find it wasn't. Note, I've not in any way suggested it's a legitimate grounds for impeachment, only that it's a rather reasonably basis to question the assumption one poster put that Obama's actions would only be what could legally be done. Second, you and I both know that impeachment is not a cut and dry situation regarding simply the law and/or constitution, but a highly political action that hinges as much, if not more, on the political winds in the country and the dynamic of power within the legislation. Third, I'm unsure what you mean about the "SC Rule against him", since I'm unaware that the SC has the ability to directly "rule against" a President as the SCOTUS can't act on it's own but only in response to cases brought forward before them.