Because the stakes are so enormous, the pending conservative Supreme Court challenge to Affordable Care Act subsidies in three dozen states generates a lot of handwringing and ideological conflict. But more recently it has also given rise to an unexpected consensus.

Though the judiciary is supposed to sequester its legal and constitutional opinions from political and substantive concerns, liberals and conservatives both agree that the consequences of a ruling for the challengers in King v. Burwell will weigh heavily on at least one conservative: Chief Justice John Roberts. The law’s supporters are thus hard at work nailing down just how many beneficiaries will lose their coverage if the court destroys the insurance markets in these states, while conservatives are trying to downplay, and perhaps reduce, the likelihood of major disruptions.

“Highlighting the potential for such a SCOTUS decision to result in widespread disruptions and dire consequences—both for millions who might lose coverage and for the insurance and health care industry in these states—may figure heavily in the government’s strategy for winning the case,” liberal writer Greg Sargent explained at the Washington Post.

Randy Barnett, a libertarian law professor and vehement ACA opponent is encouraging Republicans in Congress to get to work on an alternative—not for the sake of laying a Republican health care agenda before voters in 2016 or because any consensus exists within the GOP, but to put John Roberts’ mind at ease.

“To make a favorable ruling in King more likely, the legislative wheels must be visibly in motion by the time of oral arguments in March,” he pleaded in a USA Today op-ed.