The analysis I've seen suggests that the denial of standing wasn't simply a technical matter but a refutation of the argument presented by Texas et al. It wasn't the usual "you weren't the person hit by the bus, so you can't sue" but "no one was hit by a bus, idiot." It doesn't look like they'll be able to come back around and re-litigate this argument against the ACA with some new plaintiff would does have standing.
As for the broader political aspects, the Court might just be keeping its powder dry for other cases. They have to know that egregious rulings risk provoking the Democrats into taking action. Refusing to play ball on this particularly obvious end run around Congress doesn't mean they won't still push a partisan agenda in less blatant cases.
