“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” the acting United States solicitor general explained to the Supreme Court in a 1990 argument. “The presumption is that they are without jurisdiction, and the plaintiff must affirmatively prove that he has standing to invoke the power of the court.”

That’s a quote from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts – given that Roberts and his fellow Justices will be ruling on the suit that seeks to disallow subsidies for policies obtained via the Federal health exchange, it has special meaning.

The suit, funded by the Koch-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute, is ostensibly being brought by four plaintiffs who, in theory, have to prove they were harmed in order to have “standing”.  In a nutshell, “standing” means that if you aren’t harmed by an action, then you can’t complain about it.  I may not like the speed limit in Hawaii, but since I never go there I have no standing to sue.

As several news outlets have reported, three plaintiffs don’t have much to complain about; this from the Wall Street Journal:

Legal experts say the fact that Mr. King could avoid paying the penalty for lacking insurance by enrolling in VA coverage undermines his legal right to bring the case, known as “standing.” The wife of a second plaintiff has described her husband on social media as being a Vietnam veteran. The government previously questioned the standing of a third plaintiff on the grounds that her income may exempt her from paying the penalty for lacking insurance, but a lower court didn’t address the issue.

The fourth plaintiff, Brenda Levy, is Medicare-eligible in June of this year – about the time the Court would rule on the case.  As I am NOT a legal scholar or lawyer, and don’t even watch legal shows on TV, I’m not qualified to say whether Medicare eligibility changes “standing” (Medicare recipients can’t be forced to carry insurance under PPACA as they are covered by Medicare).  If it doesn’t, then the case will go forward as even one plaintiff with standing is enough.

That said, this Court seems – to my uneducated eye – to use “standing” to avoid ruling on contentious issues.

What does this mean for you?

Hard to say, as handicapping this Court is a fool’s game.

An enterprising journalist located the 4 individuals so harmed by PPACA that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is taking their case, now known as King v Burwell, to the Supreme Court.

Two of the four qualify for hardship exemptions – that is, because even the cheapest PPACA plan would cost them more than 8 percent of their income, so they are exempt from the individual mandate.

“King” in King v Burwell is one of these two; he’s an uninsured 64 year old smoker who will soon be on Medicare.  Mr King is somewhat ill-informed about “Obamacare”, but as his income is low, he avoids the individual mandate.

The other, Rose Luck, is, if anything, even less informed about Obamacare; she warned her Facebook buddies Obamacare will “cost some people 77,000 dollars a yr.” While she won’t be required to buy insurance, Ms Luck is no fan of the person whose name is used to label PPACA; she did call the President the “anti-Christ” and said Obama was elected by getting all “his Muslim people to vote for him.”

I don’t see how these two worthies were actually “harmed”, as in, suffering any material or measurable or painful or negative consequences, from PPACA

Brenda Levy is also few months away from qualifying for Medicare, has actually never attended any of the court proceedings, and, when told that her suit could eliminate health insurance coverage for several million fellow citizens, was kind of upset, saying “I don’t want things to be more difficult for people…I don’t like the idea of throwing people off their health insurance.”

(about 8.2 million Americans will likely lose coverage if King wins)

Still, she doesn’t like Obamacare, even though she could have bought a plan for $148 at a time when she claimed her premiums were $1500 a month…

Which brings us to the fourth litigant, Doug Hurst of Virginia Beach VA. Although Mr and Mrs Hurst too would have qualified for a very large subsidy, Ms Hurst is vehemently anti-Obamacare.  When approached by the reporter, she would not provide any insights into her position or rationale.

Still, Mr Hurst and Ms Levy at least seem to have the legal “standing” to claim PPACA has somehow harmed them.  I don’t see how the other two litigants can, as they aren’t required to do anything due to their low income status.

So here’s my question.  Is this the best group of litigants the Koch-backed CEI could come up with?  How about someone who had to change health plans, or an employer mandated to offer coverage? A provider affected by lower reimbursement perhaps?

There’s no question PPACA can be improved; there’s also no question many opponents’ blind fury makes for pretty crappy strategy.

What does this mean for you?

CEI is little better than Hurst, King, or Luck – ill-informed ranters who don’t have any idea what they are litigating.  Of course, CEI does have the dollars to bring a case that may well cost 8.2 million Americans their health insurance.