I understand it as well as the next person and have studied Scalia’s decision in Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife in great depth. I am being a bit sarcastic regarding the logical inconsistencies in applying the standing doctrine - e.g. when it is convenient for the SC not to rule on a case. Thomas himself points out the logical backflips and contortions the Court has resorted to in order to evade dealing with the substantive problems in Obamacare.
Actually I am not being just a bit sarcastic. I am being overtly and insultingly sarcastic. Thomas is the one who made the very brief statement that he would have taken the Texas v woke states case on voter fraud.