I hate Obamacare so much that it’s possible I’ve written more words criticizing it over the past decade than any person alive. I have supported multiple previous legal efforts against the legislation and its implementation. In the fall of 2012, after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, my Halloween costume depicted John Roberts turning into a chicken. If Congress repealed all of Obamacare tomorrow, I’d throw a party. Despite my policy preferences, I’d say the latest decision from U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor of Texas declaring Obamacare unconstitutional is an assault on the rule of law.

For those still unfamiliar, the current case, Texas v. Azar, has been filed by 20 Republican states. They argue that because the individual mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court as a tax, when the Republican tax law reduced the penalties to zero, it removed the constitutional justification for the mandate. In his decision, O’Connor not only agreed with this, but further decided that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of Obamacare, and concluded that as a result it must be struck down in its entirety.

The opinion, writes libertarian law professor Jonathan Adler, an intellectual architect of a major Supreme Court challenge to the implementation of Obamacare’s subsidies, “is, in many respects, the conservative equivalent of so-called #Resistance judicial opinions that have embraced questionable legal arguments deployed to subvert objectionable Trump Administration policies.”

So what’s so bad about the decision? Basically, there are three layers of problems. First, it’s questionable why the states would have standing to sue. Second, it’s difficult to see why Congress eliminating the penalties would make it unconstitutional. Thirdly, even if one and two were established, it’s impossible to see how the mandate can be seen as inseparable from Obamacare after Congress just acted to separate it.

Let’s start with standing. In court, whatever the potential merits of a case, plaintiffs have to first establish that they have standing to sue, which requires them to show that they are injured by the action that is being challenged. In this case, there is no penalty for going uninsured, so what’s the injury? To get around this, O’Connor treats the mandate as a requirement separate from the enforcement mechanism of the penalty. He cautions against “assuming the individual plaintiffs need not comply with the individual mandate.” But there’s no assuming about it.

In fact, as I noted when the suit was brought back in February, in Roberts’ decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, he determined that somebody who went uninsured but paid the penalty would be fully compliant. “While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful,” the chief justice wrote. “Neither the act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.”

Whatever objections I may have had about Roberts’ ruling at the time, the reality is that as a lower court judge, O’Connor is bound by what the Supreme Court has decided at the time. And at no point does O’Connor grapple with the fact that the Supreme Court clearly said that without the tax, there’s no legal consequence to going uninsured.

Moving beyond standing, this fact also makes it challenging to see why eliminating the tax would thus make the mandate unconstitutional. Over the years, there have been debates about whether a significant enough increase in the mandate tax could make it unconstitutional. If, for instance, the tax were set so high that it cost the same to pay the tax as to purchase health insurance, it could be seen as effectively a legal requirement with no realistic option of avoiding it. That could warrant a revisiting of the Roberts ruling. But in this case, Congress has done the opposite. It has weakened the power of the mandate to the point where it has absolutely no teeth. If the Supreme Court said that the mandate with a tax penalty was lawful, it’s hard to see how a significantly weaker mandate would not be allowed to stand.

Once O’Connor is finished side-stepping the major arguments against his findings on standing and the constitutionality of the mandate, he then moves on to his most preposterous decision: that if the mandate is unconstitutional, the rest of the act must also fall because it is inseverable.

The severability analysis in part has become a debate over whether it’s relevant to consider the actions of Congress in 2010, which passed Obamacare, or the one 2017, which repealed the mandate penalties. If looking at 2017, it’s hard to argue that the mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the law. Congress did just that when it eliminated the penalties.

O’Connor concludes that in part because the 2017 tax law was passed through reconciliation and Congress was limited in what it could pass, looking at intent regarding severability is a “fool’s errand.” But this is ridiculous. Republicans knew they couldn’t easily repeal other Obamacare regulations in the tax bill through reconciliation, so they could have chosen not to touch the mandate penalties as a result, but they did.

Absurdly, O’Connor argues that “the 2017 Congress, like the 2010 Congress, intended to preserve the Individual Mandate because the 2017 Congress, like the 2010 Congress, knew that provision is essential to the [Affordable Care Act].” To start, it’s hilarious to categorize Republicans, who have fought the mandate for nearly a decade, as thinking the underlying individual mandate so important to preserve. Furthermore, the idea that if they thought it so important to preserve, that they would choose to preserve it only on paper, even while stripping it of any power, is crazy. This also doesn’t consider that Republicans were saying the exact opposite.

Here’s how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell described things just before the Senate passed the tax legislation: “The conference report will also repeal the punitive individual mandate tax at the heart of Obamacare.” So here is the top Republican in the Senate literally saying: We want to repeal the penalties because we see them as so important to Obamacare. And yet O’Connor is arguing they wanted to preserve the mandate because they viewed it as essential.

As for taking the bizarre step of going back to intent in 2010, law professor Nicholas Bagley (a fair-minded supporter of Obamacare) points out that even though the 2010 Congress viewed the mandate as essential, “the mandate that the 2010 Congress said was essential had a penalty attached to it. The finding is irrelevant to a mandate that lacks any such penalty.”

More than anybody, I can appreciate the desire to get rid of Obamacare. But the Supreme Court has already made its decision, and thus lower courts are bound by the decision. As I have been arguing for years, including in a book on the subject, the way to go about things is for Republicans to unite around a sensible free-market alternative and repeal Obamacare legislatively. What’s happening here is an effort to short-circuit the normal process and implement policy preferences through judicial activism.

Embracing unelected judges using shoddy reasoning to impose their policy preferences on the country just when they produce outcomes conservatives agree with would do significant long-term damage to everything conservatives hold dear.

Two Chicago police officers were killed Monday after being struck by a metro train, authorities said.

Conrad Gary and Eduardo Marmolejo were responding to a shots fired call on the city’s South Side when a passing train hit them, Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson told reporters.

The officers were searching an area near train tracks at 103rd Street and Cottage Grove Avenue when they were struck, Johnson said. The train had been traveling at 60 mph to 70 mph, he said.

“While doing the most dangerous thing any police officer can do, and that is to chase an individual with a gun, these brave young men were consumed with identifying a potential threat to their community and put the safety of others above their own,” Johnson said.

A suspect was ultimately taken into custody and a gun was recovered, Johnson said.

Gary, 31, had been on the force 18 months. Marmolejo, 37, joined the department 2 1/2 years ago, Johnson said.

The men, both fathers, lost their lives just a week before Christmas.

“This holiday will never be the same for those two families,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said. “And while our hearts are with them, we lost people who answered the call to make Chicago a better place. We go about our lives not thinking twice and we can do that because of the men and women in the Chicago police department.”

Johnson asked Chicago to pray for the families of the officers, and for the men and women of the officers’ 5th district, “who, even tonight, would stop at nothing to safeguard their community,” he said.

“This has been an immensely difficult year for the Chicago police department,” Johnson said, “And especially for the men and women of the 5th district where they have faced tragedy after tragedy this year.”

Like most issues in politics, immigration is considered a binary one. While Republicans stress the need for an increase in border security and discuss funding a wall, Democrats see these measures as contrasting sharply with our nation’s ideals. Attempting to find a solution that will satisfy both sides is near impossible.

Last week, Jakelin Caal Maquin, a 7-year-old Guatemalan who had traveled with her family and others to the U.S., died in a Texas hospital not long after being taken into custody. According to reports, Maquin is believed to have succumbed to dehydration and shock, though a full autopsy is pending. Her life, which had barely begun, ended after a long journey to a new country.

Instantly, her story became a flashpoint. Individuals on both sides of the dialogue seized upon a narrative. Either her family and those adults who played the role of guardian were entirely to blame for her tragic death, or the United States government and, by extension, the border agents who processed her were complicit in killing. There was simply no other option. To suggest a shared responsibility, however lopsided, was seen as a lack of concern for either human life or national defense.

The fallout is predictable and exhausting.

Since Maquin’s death, it’s been reported that her father, by way of his home country’s consulate, insists she was healthy during the trip and treated well once in U.S. custody. But according to Customs and Border Protection, “the girl had not had anything to eat or drink in several days.” The confusion surrounding what really happened is bound to continue, and sadly the young girl’s story will eventually fade out of the news cycle.

Immigration has topped President Trump’s list of priorities from day one. In addition to cleaning up that swamp in Washington, many of the president’s most ardent supporters consider this to be the subject they’re most concerned in addressing. This is understandable and necessary. Americans have every right to be concerned about illegal aliens, overflowing borders, and an influx of those tied to drug cartels or terror. But while we demand change we must do so with a measure of compassion and consideration for others.

[Read more: White House says administration not responsible for death of 7-year-old migrant girl]

Conversely, Democrats are eager to blame President Trump and his administration for the tragic occurrence of Maquin’s death. Since the child passed away after interacting with border patrol, the U.S. must be at fault. This ignores that the onus is largely on the young girl’s family and other adults who were meant to oversee her health and safety. Could more have been done to help Maquin while on her ill-fated journey? Perhaps. If she was without any nourishment for several days, as the CBP says, that’s not the fault of the federal government.

As far as American involvement goes, reports paint a grim, understaffed picture:

Was Maquin overlooked in the rush to get so many illegal aliens processed? Why are there so few agents? Is there a need for more stations? These are questions worth asking. They also don’t require that you somehow believe that the U.S. killed Maquin.

The loss of a child, no matter their country of origin or family background, is a truly tragic event. It is proper to ask just how much the adults, on either side of the border, helped to watch out for her. This isn’t disparaging the many who seek a better life here. It’s also not placing fault on the outnumbered agents who help keep watch at our nation’s gates. Unfortunately, in an attempt to gain political points, many have firmly planted their feet in one camp or the other.

While I do believe that Jakelin Caal Maquin’s family shoulders much of the responsibility for her untimely passing, our immigration system factors in, too. Since the U.S. can only control one side in these situations, it must work to seriously head down a bipartisan path of improvement.

Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a senior contributor at RedState.com.

Two members of the Chicago Police Department were killed by a moving train on Monday after responding to a “shots fired” incident near the tracks, Chicago Police confirmed on Monday.

The incident reportedly took place around 6:20 p.m. local time near the South Shore region of Chicago.

The officers killed were relatively new members of the department. The officers were identified as 37-year-old Eduardo Marmolejo and 31-year-old Conrad Gary. Marmolejo had been with Chicago Police for 2 and a half years, whereas Gary had spent 18 months with the department.

Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said that the officers were dispatched to the area in response to a ShotSpotter alert. ShotSpotter is a computerized system that detects gunfire and pinpoints its location.

Johnson said that a suspect from the shots fired incident was arrested on the scene, and that a weapon was found.

Parts of Chicago’s Metra train service were shut down due to Monday’s incident.