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/ …
True, and that would be relevant if the case presented the same issues as the 2012 case. But everybody knew it did not.
-
-
But as the Post piece points out, it was reasonable grounds to predict that Barrett might vote to strike down the ACA. That prediction didn't come from nowhere.
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.