Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in King v. Burwell, the case that will decide whether language in the ObamaCare statute means what it says, or whether the Obama administration is free to set up an entire health-regulatory scheme that is nowhere authorized in the 906 pages of the 2010 federal law.

This isn’t a case with constitutional issues like the Supreme Court’s last major ObamaCare ruling, National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, in 2012, where the court had to decide whether ObamaCare’s “individual mandate” requiring everyone to buy health insurance or pay a penalty was allowed by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. King v. Burwell is strictly about how the IRS interpreted a clause in the ObamaCare law that says that an individual can qualify for a subsidy on his or her premium only if that person was enrolled “in an [insurance] exchange established by the state.”

Some 34 (or 37, depending on how you count) states have refused to set up exchanges–essentially state agendies that regulate and facilitate the sale of health insurance–so the Obama administration stepped in and set up a federal exchange on its own that it claims also qualifies enrollees for the state subsidies. The administration argues that that's what Congress intended, even though it didn't actually say so.

This has the ObamaCare-loving press in a quandary: how to persuade the Supreme Court–or actually how to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts, who cast the deciding vote to uphold the individual mandate in the National Federation case–to ignore the plain language of the text of a federal law passed by Congress, thus allowing the Obama administration essentially to write its own law. So there are a variety of journalistic strategies simultaneously at work.

One is the pity party: focus on the millions of people who wouldn’t be able to afford health insurance with the subsidies, as Mary Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, does in the webpages of the Huffington Post. Never mind that the reason these subsidies were necessary in the first place was ObamaCare’s heinous premium increases.

Or you can belittle the entire court case as stupid, as USA Today's Robert Schlessinger does in an op-ed titled "The Silliest ObamaCare Challenge Yet." There, Schlessinger tosses around words such as "absurd" and "ridiculous," apparently hoping if he says them often enough, Chief Justice Roberts will get the idea that he's supposed to sneer, too.

Or you can say that Congress just goofed in its rush to push the law through and avoid the filibuster-enabling monkey wrench that then-Massachusetts GOP Senator Scott Brown, a sworn ObamaCare opponent, threw into the machine in his special election in 2009. That's the approach of Vox's Sarah Kliff. Kliff seems to think that it is the job of the Supreme Court to clean up after a sloppy Congress.

Or, finally, as the Washington Post's Robert Barnes does, you can warn Roberts that if he votes to interpret the law the way it's written, he'll be injecting "partisan" politics into Supreme Court rulings. Also, he'll turn into a "conservative activist" like that mean old Justice Antonin Scalia.

Good luck with the lobbying, press. In Roberts's majority opinion in that 2012 National Federation case, he wrote, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." I predict that  he is going to write something similar this time around. But he can rest assured this time that siding with the petitioners will protect the people from a rogue IRS and the horrors that ObamaCare already has caused.

The press is clearly relying on political arguments because the government’s legal case is weak. It is the job of the Supreme Court to focus only on the legal arguments and leave the politics to Congress and the affected states, where contingency plans already are in the works to protect the people who were issued illegal subsidies. The press wants to paint this as an impending disaster. It is not. The disaster is ObamaCare. To recall Nancy Pelosi, maybe it would have been a good idea for Congress to read the legislation before passing it.