What’s up nerds! @AngryBlackLady here. Before we begin the SCOTUS live-tweet, let’s talk about what this ACA case is all about.

SEVERABILITY.
I don’t know if you really, but back when the Court said the ACA was A-OK, it did so because it said that the individual mandate was a tax and that the ACA was a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power.
In 2017, when Congress passed the preposterously named Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it zeroed out the individual mandate which means no one had to pay a penalty for not getting insurance.
Then because Republicans couldn’t repeal the bill on their own, they filed a lawsuit and asked a super partisan judge to do it.
In California v. Texas, a district court in Texas found that the mandate is no longer a tax—since there was no penalty anymore—and that the mandate was so intertwined with the bill, that it couldn’t be severed.

That the whole bill had to die.
So the court tossed the whole bill. It’s absurd. But that’s where we are.

Ok, let's do this.
Roberts: Is someone who doesn't follow the mandate and purchase insurance violating the law?

You don't have to buy insurance and if you don't buy insurance nothing happens.

So why do you have standing? Where is your injury? Can you challenge the law?
Mongan (California's solicitor general) says no. You don't have standing because literally nothing is going to happen to you.
Thomas speaking always freaks me out.

He's making a hypothetical about face mask wearing. Asks what if there was a mandate to wear a mask but no penalty and no threat of enforcement. Can a person challenge the law? Do they have standing?

Mongan: Nah dude.
You can follow @RewireNewsGroup.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.