📣 THREAD: Oral arguments on the insane #TexasFoldEm #ACA case will happen on Tuesday before a 3-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
One judge is a Jimmy Carter appointee.
One is a George W. Bush appointee.
One is a Donald Trump appointee.

https://twitter.com/emmaplatoff/status/1145705511809163264

1/

As @mattbc just noted, while a HUGE social media presence to #SaveTheACA is expected (as well as real world protests/rallies, etc), the sad truth is that there's very little which can be done to influence the 5th Circuit panels' decision. They're lifetime judicial appointees. 2/

As he also pointed out, while the *hearing* will happen on Tuesday, they likely won't announce their *decision* on the case for several weeks or even months...and the odds are that their decision will then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court regardless of how they rule. 3/

In other words, the odds are that the case won't have a FINAL decision until sometime next spring/summer...at which point we're *fully* into the 2020 election cycle. The stakes couldn't be higher. 4/

HOWEVER, there's a few potential wildcard twists which could come into play. The biggest one is the recent "Why Do You Have Standing?" development: acasignups.net/19/06/26/dange… 5/

Basically, less than 2 weeks before oral arguments, the 5th Circuit sent out a notice to the parties telling them to explain why they have standing in the case to begin with. This has @nicholas_bagley a bit freaked out. Ironically, it's @jadler1969 who's urging caution. 6/

The defense in this case SHOULD be the U.S. Justice Dept...except that the DoJ has been ordered to literally throw the fight. They're not only refusing to defend the #ACA, they're actively *agreeing* with the plaintiffs (20 GOP Attorneys General) that it should be repealed. 7/

That means the only ones defending the #ACA are the @HouseDemocrats (technically the entire U.S. House, but let's be real) and ~20 *Democratic* state Attorneys General. That's right: It's ~20 GOP AGs vs. ~20 Dem AGs. #LetsGetReadyToRumble 8/

"Standing" deals w/whether you have any business being involved in the case in the first place, regardless of the merits. Like, if some restaurant in AL is violating health codes, I can't sue them if I've never been outside of MI. One of their patrons would have to. 9/

...or at least someone who has an active connection to the violation, like the local/state health board, or OSHA if it's a safety violation, etc. The 5th is basically asking the states to explain how they would be harmed/damaged by the #ACA being wiped out. Think about that. 10/

It's *conceivable* the 5th could rule that the *House* doesn't have standing, but it's insane to think that the ~20 states defending don't; they'd see MASSIVE damage. MILLIONS of residents would lose healthcare coverage & BILLIONS of dollars in federal funding would be lost. 11/

Conversely, if they somehow still conclude that the *defending* states "don't have standing", they'd also have to conclude that the *plaintiff* states don't either...in which case the entire case should be thrown out.

However, there's one other jaw-dropping possibility: 12/

As @jadler1969 noted, there's an outside chance they might even rule that the #ACA must be struck down *in those 20 red states only*: 13/

acasignups.net/19/07/03/texas…

I find it almost impossible to believe that this'll happen...but EVERYTHING surrounding the #ACA's history suggests that it's a possibility, and under the Trump Administration, literally anything is possible. If THIS were to happen (and be upheld by SCOTUS)...holy crap. 14/

As I noted, even if you think this would be "just desserts", I can't fathom how that would even work logistically. Some employers are based in a red state but has employees/offices in a blue state. Some policies are multi-state. 15/

Some #ACA provisions apply to federal programs in general, not individual states, like the closure of the Medicare Part D donut hole. How about taxes...would high-income red state residents still have to pay the #ACA's taxes without getting any of the benefits? #schadenfreude 16/

One thing that'd definitely happen: A ton of red state residents w/expensive medical conditions would likely move to blue states (which is already happening on a small scale...exacerbating the risk pool problems of those states...which in & of itself could provide standing. 17/

In any event, Tuesday likely won't be the final word, but it's still gonna be a huge day for the #ACA...which is why I was stunned that NOT ONE PERSON (candidate *or* moderator) even MENTIONED it during the 4 hours of Dem Debates a week or so ago: acasignups.net/19/06/29/most-… 18/

So PAY ATTENTION, because for all of the fuss over whether we move to "Medicare for All", NONE OF THAT WOULD START UNTIL 2022 AT THE VERY EARLIEST, which means tens of millions of people are at risk RIGHT NOW. /end #SaveTheACA #ProtectOurCare

POSTSCRIPT: For those upset that there's nothing anyone can do about how the 5th Circuit or SCOTUS *rules* on the #TexasFoldEm case, THERE WAS...IN 2016. Unfortunately, some thought Hillary's emails or her "shrill voice" were more important. #JustSaying

https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/1147901408919871488

⚠️ Oh, for those wondering what the lawsuit itself is actually ABOUT, here it is:

1. The GOP set the #ACA individual mandate penalty to $0.
2. Therefore, the GOP claims the penalty is unconstitutional.
3. Therefore, the GOP claims the whole law is unconstitutional.

That’s it.

I’m quite serious. That’s their entire argument: “I cut off your feet, therefore I must be allowed to cut off your head as well.”

Their evidence? “You once said having feet was a vital part of your life, so now you must die.”

It makes zero logical sense, and yet here we are.

⚠️⚠️ IMPORTANT: As Colorado AG @pweiser just reminded me, there are actually two *Republican* state Attorneys General who are DEFENDING the #ACA alongside a bunch of Dem AGs.

@OhioAG Dave Yost and Montana @AGTimFox deserve a shout-out for standing up to do the right thing.