Live from Above Hetch-Hetchy: Why has King v. Burwell not been DIGed--or, at least, why haven't the lawyers and funders for the plaintiff been told to go back and get a new and different lead plaintiff?

Because at least the four justices who voted to grant certiorari are so partisan that they are willing to throw more than two centuries of Supreme Court precedent that the court decides only real cases out the window.

One does have to wonder what is going through the mind of John Roberts. How much credibility does he think he and his fellow partisan right-wing horsemen have to waste after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, anyway?

Richard Mayhew: What Harm?: "I have to ask what harm does the lead plaintiff have in the King case given what he just said in a newspaper...

Mr. King said that he was not really worried about the outcome of the case, King v. Burwell, because as a Vietnam veteran, he has access to medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The plaintiff’s theory of harm is.... They don’t want to spend money on insurance nor on the mandate penalty.... Subsidies make insurance affordable and therefore puts them under the obligation.... Their asked-for solution is to have the subsidies declared illegal.... However... because] Mr. King is eligible for affordable healthcare via the VA, the mandate still applies.... IANAL, but how the f--- does he have standing?  Is there a betting pool that the case gets DIGed/Denied for Improvidently Granted?  I would like to take 10:1 odds on that outcome.