Tiny Right-Wing Heads Exploding Over Obamacare Affirmation

Savor, as Ed Kilgore does, the schadenfreude of seeing right-wing Republican dead-enders in their agony over the Supreme Court's John Roberts' betrayal of their Noble Cause.  Here's an appetizer:

At National Review’s The Corner, Quin Hilyer had this to say about the Chief Justice:

With today’s Obamacare decision, John Roberts confirms that he has completely jettisoned all pretense of textualism. He is a results-oriented judge, period, ruling on big cases based on what he thinks the policy result should be or what the political stakes are for the court itself. He is a disgrace. That is all.

The headline was: “Chief Justice Roberts Has Officially Gone Native in Washington.”

There aren't enough pixels to capture all the agony - real and fake - that Republicans and small-bore people everywhere are experiencing over the King v. Burwell decision that, as President Obama said, means "the Affordable Care Act is here to stay."  But you'll be hearing "Apocalypse now!" from all the candidates in the Republican presidential clown car, Congressional hacks and the mouth-frothing grifters at Fox "News."  Feel free to roam the internet and get warmth from wingnut volcanic rage (after Kilgore's piece, you can go here for more unhinged reactions - hee hee).

And, you know what?  It doesn't matter anymore.  They lost, and the American people won.

BONUS:  There's a lot out there about human pus sac "Justice" Antonin Scalia's raving dissent, but a few discerning observers noted that Chief Justice Roberts used Scalia's previous argument against him in King v. Burwell.

To defend making the subsidies available to consumers everywhere, Roberts cited a line the dissent to the 2012 decision in favor of Obamacare, in which Scalia said, "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."

Roberts used the line to argue that it "is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate" in a manner to limit the subsidies only to those states with state-operated exchanges, as the challengers in King v. Burwell argued.

Who said a raging crackpot has to be consistent?  Nicely played.