Politico reports that the President is now trying to place “unusual moral weight” behind his case for fudging the text of Obamacare to provide subsidies in states without exchanges. “Unusual” is putting it generously. I’d say the moral reasons to let the IRS rewrite Obamacare are about as strong as the legal justifications: very, very weak.

There is nothing moral about misleading people to achieve your political goals. That’s true whether you’re trying to get a law passed and assure people that they will be able to keep their doctor and insurance, or you are trying to expand the number of people enrolling and you tell people they are entitled to subsidies they don’t qualify for. Millions of people made serious financial decisions based on personal assurances from the President that they would receive a subsidy that – we now know the IRS knew all along was legally suspect. Whatever happened to “let your yes be yes and your no be no?”

There is nothing moral about playing “chicken” with people’s healthcare to score political points. The president’s refusal to explore ways to address the problem his IRS has created is a baldfaced effort to raise the stakes in King v. Burwell in hopes that the Supreme Court will bail him out.

There is nothing moral about gutting our Constitution’s separation of powers, which is designed to safeguard individual liberty. The law passed by Congress and signed by the president himself is the law of the land. It’s both dishonest and disrespectful of our system of government to usurp legislative power from the people’s elected representatives.

There is nothing moral about forcing people to pay for health care plans that violate their consciences. Threatening nuns with massive fines if they don’t abandon their deeply held beliefs is morally abhorrent.

There is nothing moral about trying to fix health care for today’s Americans by spending trillions of dollars we don’t have, raising premiums when you promised to lower them, or forcing the healthy to enroll in insurance they don’t need and can’t afford. The president’s melodramatic appeals to stories about a small minority of people who Obamacare might help conveniently ignore the many people who are now definitely worse off.

There is nothing moral about trying to bully a court into endorsing the lawless rewriting of a statute by presenting a false dilemma: either rule our way or we will caricature you as heartless and cruel. The justices don’t have to choose between their duty to faithfully interpret the law and their love of neighbor.

The President’s “moral” case really boils down to this: If you like your morals, you can keep your morals.