The fallacy in this @AaronBlake piece, which I have seen elsewhere: the standing arguments in this case were already well-known when Barrett was nominated. They were one of the things I cited then as reasons the case was unlikely to toss the statute.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/17/judicial-torpedo-that-wasnt-what-amy-coney-barretts-obamacare-vote-tells-us/ …
I still think the states properly pled standing for their reporting costs. But the other standing arguments were weak, and that one was hotly contested.
-
-
The Scotus majority and the 5th Circuit dissent shredded that one.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.