What you get in a society that no longer values a consistent worldview

So a new ABC/Washington Post poll finds that post-Americans would like the Supreme Court to find that states relying on the federal exchange get to keep their Freedom-Hater-care subsidies when it decides on King v Burwell, by a 55 to 38 margin.

But post-Americans still oppose the overall law, currently by 54 to 39.  (It's always been underwater.)

What's up with that?

The disconnect in the new poll -- that a majority opposes the law, while a nearly equal majority does not want the Supreme Court to rule against it -- is driven by political independents as well as Republicans. Independents oppose the law 56 percent to 35 percent. But they also want a ruling in favor of subsidies by almost exactly the same margin. Likewise, although only 19 percent of Republicans support the law, 34 percent say the court should not block subsidies to low- and moderate-income people.

Among independents, the seemingly incongruent stances are explained by opponents of the law who nonetheless favor subsidies. Among this group, 49 percent want the court to block subsidies, while 45 percent say it should not.

Do they not realize that the redistribution that plays itself out as the subsidies drives the entire law, including the mandates that clearly amount to raw coercion?

This is what you get when citizens of a declining nation no longer embrace real principles, but will talk a good game about principles, and when asked to specify what they mean, offer up some crud like "fairness" or "equality."