Well, the Republicans have done it again, by golly. In today’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, four plaintiffs sued the government. What do they want? For the court to say the subsidies to low-income insured in the 34 states controlled by Republicans are illegal. That will essentially deny insurance coverage to nearly 8 million people. Good work, right? Eight million very angry voters in red states? Hmm…maybe not.

The enthusiasm to kill Obamacare was hot and heavy in 2012, because it was an election year and because it was something Obama did. But now it’s 2015, and the healthcare program has been in place for over a year. A whole lot of people all of a sudden have insurance that didn’t have it before. Insurance they can afford. And that doesn’t have huge deductibles or copays. That’s a good thing, right? No, it’s a bad thing. Why is it bad? Because the Democrats put it in place.

Denying insurance coverage to needy people because of politics is a sin. But this time around, I think the Republicans are going to be hoisted on Fendall Hawkins petard. Who? What? Let me ‘splain.

In 1966, a great comedy hit the screen called The Russians Are Coming…The Russians are Coming. The character actor Paul Ford played a buffoon named Fendall Hawkins, who was determined to create a national incident out of a Russian submarine mistakenly getting stuck on a sand bar. Here’s Paul’s picture as Fendall. Needless to say, ole’ Fendall became a headache for everybody, including the town sheriff and – in the end – the townspeople. So what’s that got to do with today’s case?

Those four folks that sued from Virginia are right-wingers, whose legal fees were paid for by a conservative think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI bills itself as a ‘libertarian’ think tank, but its funders come from mainstream corporate America. The lawyers for CEI pored over all 900 pages of the legislation to find one word that they say will kill the whole statute. The word is by. Yes by. The language in the statute provides subsidies for folks in health care exchanges set up by the states. But in 2012, John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supremes, let the states off the hook to set up their exchanges. So instead, the feds set up the exchanges. Since the legislators that created the program could never have envisioned the outcome of the 2012 case, it’s logical to say that the language was to address the original game plan – subsequently declared unconstitutional. So now, will the Supremes find for the plaintiffs and gut the program? We’ll find out in June.

But here’s the interesting part. Let’s say they find for the plaintiffs. Almost eight million pissed off voters can’t be good for Republicans in those 34 red states. What can they do? Why, they can set up health care exchanges, and let those subsidies continue. That’s really sticking it to Obama, right? Sure. OK, let’s say the Supremes understand the impact on working class Americans, and find a way to uphold the statute. The Republicans look like the bullies that just got punched by the wimp’s older sister. Bad news for having started this whole mess, right? So as I said in the title: if they win, they lose; if they lose, they lose.

Going back to the film, Fendall called in the Air Force to attack the Russian sub after the Russian sailors – along with the men of the town – saved the deputy sheriff’s son from falling off the church steeple. The whole town was mad at Fendall, and helped the Russians escape by mobilizing all the boats in the harbor, and escorting the sub back out to sea. In this case, the four plaintiffs have called in the Air Force to sink the submarine called affordable health care for 8 million residents of red state America. Jeb Bush is probably praying every night the Supremes decide the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, and just dismiss the case on those grounds. That would be a blessing for everyone. Care to lay odds on this one, gentle readers?

Postscript: I just read a piece by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times, written about a month ago about the case. Her writing led me to the list of briefs written for King v Burwell on the American Bar Association website. All the briefs for both sides are available from the site, including the Amicus briefs, i.e. written statements that support each side from other sources. Here’s the interesting point, one that surely comports with my comments above. Just about all the Amicus briefs for the plaintiffs are from conservative think tanks and other, right-leaning entities that live in the abstract, partisan world. The Amicus briefs for the government include a whole slew of health care providers, and even the attorneys-general of a coalition of states, including red states. Even the attorney general of Virginia filed on behalf of the government. So as I said above, nobody with any sense at all wants this case decided for the plaintiffs. The cost at this point is just too great – for everybody, including the health care providers to low-income families that will be hurt by it. But as I detailed above, the folks with the most to lose are Republicans. As such, I’ll lay odds the Supremes will find for the government. It’ll just be interesting to see how they do it. Any thoughts, y’all?