Back when I was in college, in the first flush of campus leftism in the 1960s, college students used to chant, "On strike! Shut it down!" Blocking the functioning of a large, bureaucratic organization, and preventing people who wanted to gain benefits from it, was seen as an acceptable or even heroic thing to do, at least by the left. It didn't even have to be directly related to the thing that was being protested—sitins at Berkeley were hardly going to end the draft or get the U.S. out of Vietnam—it just was supposed to be a protest.
More recently, we've seen a number of state governments, including California's, pass laws with majority support on such matters as forbidding either same-sex marriage or the treatment of nonmarital same-sex relationships as equivalent to marriage. These were passed quite democratically, with the approval of the general public in the various states (indeed, California's law passed in the same year that the state went sweepingly for Barack Obama over John McCain). I disapprove of them, as violations of individual rights, and I am pleased to see that many people on the left agree with me, and oppose majoritarian democracy, and hope to see the courts do away with laws against same-sex marriage, if the people cannot be persuaded to vote to do the right thing—not daunted by the fact that the Supreme Court's latest decision was a five-to-four split that only did part of what they hoped for.
So it's really odd to me that, on one hand, I'm seeing people on the left insisting that the ACA was passed into law by a majority and what the majority wants is sacrosanct and should never be questioned on grounds such as the appeal to individual rights that so nearly carried the Supreme Court; and, on the other hand, I'm seeing them deeply offended that a relatively small, partisan group should be shutting down the largest, most bureaucratic organization in the United States, and perhaps in the world, to protest a law they deem unjust. Or perhaps "dubious" is better than "odd." It makes it look as if they admired shutting things down, and objected to majority rule overriding individual rights, not as a matter of principle, but simply because they found the results tactically useful; and as if, when that same tactic is useful to the other side, they suddenly find reasons for considering it wrong and indeed deeply offensive, and for saying that the will of the majority must absolutely prevail and that shutting things down is intolerably harmful.
In short, just at the moment, they sound a lot like conservatives.