While I agree with the overall outcome of this case on congressional authority and moral hazard grounds, I must say I am quite concerned about the court's logic regarding standing in this specific case.
Standing doctrine is stupid anyway. It feels like they invented it purely to get out of having to do some tricky decisions. We should greatly broaden standing far more than it is now.
I think standing as a whole is a useful rule, but it needs to be disambiguated and more consistently enforced. The Court has always used standing as a convenient excuse to weasle out of difficult subjects.
Major questions doctrine is pretty stupid too given it feels like they invented it purely to get out of situations where textualism goes in the opposite direction that they want to rule.
I think the idea is reasonable but it's true they mainly apply it when it's convenient. If you delegate authority, your agent shouldn't overstep the implicit role you have given them. For example if you hire a plumber to "fix your sink" and then you come back and he's replaced all your pipes and billed you $10,000 then you would be rightly angry that he didn't get approval for that additional work even if he says that it was part of fixing the sink.
