This morning, Scott, and a (nameless) conservative law professor, before him… in trying to reach a null result, on the student loan cases being argued before the Supremes today… simply pretend that the doctrine of proving standing… just doesn’t exist.

Yeh — that is great for law school hypotheticals (i.e., illustrating arcane points about how many lawyers may be balanced on the head of a particular pin), but out here in the real world, competent judges and justices do not decide cases that are not real — that do not present “a case or controversy for which the law offers answers.”

Don’t believe me? Cool. Just ask the Supremes — when they slapped young Drew Tipton in Texas down, on his immigration non-sequiturs. Or ask Aileen Cannon, in Ft. Pierce, FL — when the Supremes let stand her complete loss (due to failure to find any standing for Tangerine’s claims!) on the Top Secret stolen papers.

Nah, Scott… you silly ivory tower folk go ahead and debate what the Supremes ought to do on the merits, in the student loan cases… but they are not likely to ever reach it.

There is, in a word… no standing — for the challengers coming out of Texas and Mizzou.

You chuckleheads cannot have it both ways: it cannot be that Tangerine may impose Muslim Bans (without any statutory antecedent), and/or spend billions in money without Congressional appropriations on walls (that Congress specifically denied ongoing funding for) — and in the same moment, argue that Mr. Biden may not use clear spending power directly delegated to his office by the Congress.

Cheers, son.