King v. Burwell, a case recently heard by the Supreme Court, has been hailed by conservatives as a historic opportunity to uphold the Constitution and torpedo the Affordable Care Act. Liberals have denounced the case as a virtual death warrant for some who would lose their health insurance subsidies if the plaintiffs prevail. Isn’t it curious how a single subject can inspire such radically different views?

The argument of the plaintiffs is that the language of the health care act provides subsidies only for those who buy insurance from exchanges “established by the State.” Thirty-four states refused to establish such exchanges, yet the federal government has still provided subsidies. Thus, claim the plaintiffs, the government is violating the terms of its own law.

One commentator called the lawsuit “cynical,” “mean-spirited” and “frivolous.”

Another argued that the case is “merely the byproduct of a poorly written law” and that it’s “a legitimate challenge to the law’s language.” The first commentator sees the lawsuit as an attempt to kill the law over a mere “semantic infelicity.” But Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy himself says that the case raises “serious constitutional problems affecting the relationship between the states and the federal government.” If there’s so much disagreement among intelligent, well-informed authorities, what are we ignorant peasants supposed to think? If the case is such a trivial matter, why is the Supreme Court hearing it?

In a similar vein, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s appearance before Congress was castigated by some as a gross violation of protocol and a blow to relations between the U.S. and Israel. Others called it a masterstroke that exposed the delusional strategy of President Obama with regard to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Charles Krauthammer called the speech “powerful” and compared it to the best of Winston Churchill. Trudy Rubin accused Netanyahu of turning a serious issue into a “partisan slugfest” and a “political circus.” Where does the truth lie?

We have an enormous aptitude for disagreement. Faced with such cognitive dissonance most of us fall back on our passionate, knee-jerk ideologies. If Democrats are behind something, Republicans automatically reject it and vice versa. Is there never any merit to the ideas of the other side? As for the Supreme Court, is there no “justice” that transcends the court’s rigid political divisions, no law that serves us all?

One party says that raising the minimum wage helps low-income workers. The other says that it throws them out of work. One side argues that taxing the rich and redistributing the proceeds reduces inequality. The other side claims that policy hinders economic growth, the real engine of economic betterment. Is either position absolutely true or false? No one listens to the arguments of opponents for fear of having his convictions challenged. Both sides pick their facts from scraps of hearsay and a cornucopia of dubious “facts.” Few people actually know what’s in the Affordable Care Act. And yet everyone rants for or against it with fanatical zeal.

Consider an alliance that’s been formed between liberal environmentalists and free market conservatives in response to an attempt by utilities to thwart competition from solar energy. One side operates out of opposition to crony capitalism, the other out of concern for the environment. But miraculously these strange bedfellows agree. How many other things might we agree on if we took the time to think and to listen to the other side?