PRESS DECLARES ROMNEY THE NOMINEE, SUPREMES SCHEDULE HEALTH CARE RULING FOR THIS YEAR -- COINCIDENCE?

The wingnut-apparatchik bloc on the Supreme Court really must have held out hope until the last minute for a mainstream-ish GOP nominee who wasn't Mitt Romney. Think about it: the political establishment thought Rick Perry was the only other person who could win the GOP nomination until Perry's "Oops!" flub, and mere days after that flub -- and after Erick Erickson declared that the result of having Romney at the top of the ticket would be that "conservatism dies and Obama wins" -- the Supremes decided that they plan to rule on the Obama health care law this year:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, President Obama's signature legislative achievement. The development set the stage for oral arguments by March and a decision in late June, in the midst of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Is that the correct explanation for the timing of the announcement? Or was the plan all along to fire up the base this way, either by declaring that Obama's law flouts the Constitution or, if a fifth vote can't be won over, by allowing the right-wing noise machine to proclaim that the ruling happened as a result of conflict of interest?

...it appears that all justices will take part in the decision.

Conservative groups had called on Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself because she worked for the Obama administration as solicitor general....

(Yes, I know: Clarence Thomas has a real conflict of interest, given that his wife has actively campaigned against the bill. But our side would never mount an effective campaign of outrage on the subject, and wouldn't have even if Anthony Weiner were still in office and untainted by scandal.)

Or am I looking at this all wrong? Are the Supremes now trying to help Romney by taking the issue he's presumed to have offended the base on the most off the table? (Supreme Court to Wingnuttia re health care: Chill the f**k out. We got this.)

Whatever's going on, I think we have to amend Finley Peter Dunne: the Supreme Court is now trying to drive the election returns.