Thread by @mfcannon

1/ SCOTUS agrees 7-2 with #ObamaCare critics like @jadler1969 & me (nypost.com/2019/03/28/oba…) that the plaintiffs in #CAvTX lacked standing to challenge #ObamaCare's individual mandate: supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…. GOP appointees Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett joined majority.

2/ #CAvTX arose after Roberts in #NFIBvSebelius saved the #ACA by interpreting the mandate as a tax. NFIB "gutted the Constitution's political-accountability constraint, which had prevented Congress from creating the mandate via Congress' taxing power." forbes.com/sites/michaelc…

3/ Roberts' opinion indicated that if the Court could not interpret the mandate as a tax, the mandate would have been unconstitutional.

4/ After Congress zeroed-out the mandate penalty in 2017, GOP state attys general & a few individuals filed suit, claiming that since the mandate no longer raised revenue, courts could no longer interpret it as a tax, ergo it was unconstitutional under NFIB & the #ACA must fall.

5/ Back when we called this case #TexasvAzar, a federal district-court judge in TX agreed with the plaintiffs. He therefore struck down the entire #ACA.

But there was a problem. He had to throw out the rulebook to do it.

6/ As I wrote when I condemned this case in 2019, "To challenge a federal law, plaintiffs must demonstrate it causes them a concrete injury. Since Congress zeroed out the mandate penalty, the mandate no longer injures anyone..." nypost.com/2019/03/28/oba…

7/ I wrote the GOP-appointee "should have immediately tossed the case out of court." Instead, he "did ­exactly what Chief Justice John Roberts did at the high court [in #NFIBvSebelius]: jettison the rule of law to achieve a politically desired outcome." nypost.com/2019/03/28/oba…

8/ These and other problems with the judge's ruling are why many legal scholars who don't support #ObamaCare, like @jadler and @IlyaSomin, nevertheless opposed this effort to strike down the entire law: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/1….

9/ Whatever other problems there may be with the plaintiffs' legal arguments, SCOTUS did what the district court should have done: tossed the case because the plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge this part of #ObamaCare.

10/ It might surprise some people that the guy The @NewRepublic calls “#ObamaCare’s single most relentless antagonist” and @TheWeek calls “ObamaCare’s fiercest critic” (i.e., me) opposed this attempt to overturn the #ACA.

Anyone whom this surprises isn't paying attention.

11/ The principles that lead me to oppose #ObamaCare are the same ones that lead me to oppose #CaliforniavTexas.

12/ Everyone has the right to live how they wish, so long as they respect the equal rights of others.

#ObamaCare takes away many of those rights. So I oppose it.

The rule of law secures those rights. #CAvTX sought to undermine stable rules of standing. So I opposed it.

13/ I'd be remiss if I didn't mention:

#ObamaCare also makes coverage & care worse: healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hbl….

There may be good reasons to change the rules of standing. But doing it to deliver a policy win to one tribe isn't among them.

14/ I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention:

@TheDemocrats' hyperventilating over how #ACB would rule on #CAvTX turned out to be all for naught.

15/ Finally, had SCOTUS used #CAvTX to kill the #ACA, #ObamaCare supporters would have had no valid basis to object.

It would've been no different from what they successfully urged SCOTUS to do in #NFIBvSebelius & #KingvBurwell: toss the rulebook to hand one tribe a policy win.

16/ Shorter: had SCOTUS used #CAvTX to strike down the #ACA, #ObamaCare supporters would have had no one to blame but themselves.

17/ Justice Thomas summed it up nicely...

18/ Along the way, Thomas takes a much-deserved dig at one of those errors, #KingvBurwell.

So does Alito, here.