It is not often I get to quote Bo Burnham politically. It is also not often that the GOP backtracks and flip-flops on issues… Wait. Who am I kidding? They are nominating Mitt Romney for Pete’s sake.

In his song, “Words, Words, Words,” Bo Burnham sings the lyrics, “I hate catchy choruses, and I’m a hypocrite, Hungry hungry hippo-crite.” That chorus, ironically being catchy itself, makes the wordplay amusing.

Comparatively, in their ideology, conservatives like Justice Antonin Scalia hate judicial activism. He says, “Value-laden decisions such as that should be made by an entire society … not by nine unelected judges.” That, ironically, is what Obama said last week, making the timing amusing.

Bo Burnham’s words can illustrate the nauseating fact that conservatives have a seemingly insatiable desire for “having one’s cake and eating it too.”

Recently Obama employed a historically conservative talking point in regards to the health care bill coming under review by the Supreme Court of the United States. Obama states, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

A long time GOP talking point has been the overreach of the courts, AKA activism. They say justices should practice judicial restraint, not judicial activism. This restraint means not legislating from the bench. As our own Roy Blunt states, “Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people.”

Sounds oddly similar to what Obama is saying. Although neither side is necessarily right in their accusations, either way it is looked at, it is hypocritical for conservatives to have preached restraint then want it dismissed during this case. As Albany law school professor Vincent Bonventre put it, “The conservatives’ own philosophy suggests they should uphold ObamaCare.”

The hypocrisy over the individual mandate doesn’t stop there. The mandate, the part of the healthcare bill most closely under review by the SCOTUS, has strong conservative roots. The individual mandate is a provision that requires everyone to have healthcare or pay a penalty. This idea was coined by conservative economists back in the 1980s. Then it was touted by the conservatives as an alternative to the universal healthcare Bill Clinton tried to pass in the ’90s. Finally it was put into action as part of RomneyCare in 2006.

As we all know Romney is _severely_ conservative. Does that make the individual mandate severely conservative too?

Now Romney pledges to repeal the healthcare bill he and the rest of his conservative cohorts set the foundation for. Not to mention that their whole party wants the judges to strike it down as unconstitutional — something that goes against their own judicial ideology.

Either way the bill plays out in the Supreme Court, things look good for Obama and the nation’s healthcare system alike. If they strike it down, in part or in whole, he can run on either denouncing the Supreme Court’s judicial activism or off of the lost benefits the bill would have provided. The bill prevents being a woman from being a pre-existing condition, it provides billions of savings for the elderly though cheaper medicine, and does so while saving money according to the Congressional Budget Office. All of those fit big narratives coming up in November.

Not only will Obama have things to run on politically, but the nation will watch our poor health care system take center stage. The problems that we face will be debated by two men, Romney and Obama, who have played key roles in shaping a legitimate alternative to the current system.

Until June when the Supreme Court releases its decision over the healthcare bill, we all can just sit back and watch conservatives pander to their base about the evils of a bill they helped create. As Bo Burnham said, hungry hungry hippo-crites.