To improve their odds in a Supreme Court case that threatens Affordable Care Act subsidies in 34 states, Republicans in Congress have been trying to foam the runway for any conservative justices concerned that a decision against Obamacare might land badly with the public. Their latest effort: a promise to provide an alternative or stopgap measure.

That’s not my interpretation of the GOP’s various, quasi-legislative machinations. They’re coming right out and saying it.

Their theory hinges both on making real legislative progress and on conveying confidence that Congress will be ready to act, come what may. But one of the architects of the King vs. Burwell case is undermining the latter objective.

At a Georgetown University law school debate on Wednesday, Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute explained, persuasively, why a smooth landing is so unlikely if the Court rules in favor of the King petitioners.

“There are two ways to correct this imbalance,” Cannon said. “One of them is, and my preferred way is, you get rid of those subsidies and mandates so that the law is not making health insurance so expensive for the majority of these folks in healthcare.gov anymore. That is basically repeal. Repeal is relief for the vast majority of people in the exchanges, and you would want to do something to help those who could not then afford health insurance on their own. And I think that’s what the Republicans in Congress will want to do.”