I'm not sure.

They literally said they would not grant the remedy they ask @William Dinan

fair but absent an injunction the electors are voting today

Electors Clause is a US Constitutional Issue.

Voting in the State Yes.

So many ways to steal.

Finally someone enters the sphere of US political life with a proven track record for making things happen at scale.

Every thinking person and party loyalist should not rest until there is a Little Red Book in The possession of all the citizenry of The People's Republic of Lemon'ey Fresh.

They were appealing to how the state conducted their election and the rules they set out for the election. They have no standing for that @William Dinan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQWsH4SE6e4

more massive and detailed no evidence

I have said all along this should have been an Electors Clause Issue not an Election one.

which if you read between the lines is different that saying it is purely a state issue at least as far as Thomas and Alito are concerned ... seems the other Justices lumped not granting remedy into standing

@William Dinan well that is what the appealed to and correctly lost on standing

Reading between the lines does not established Law.

Standing is Bullshit made up by Lazy Judges IMO.

^ this

@meglide if I remember there is a interpretation that makes it a a legal requirement to listen to Texas

@William Dinan how

Just saying it as Barnes did does not make it so @William Dinan

maybe reading the lines that Thomas and Alito wrote may be a better way of saying it ... but yeah this dismissal sets no precedence which may not be a good thing

When and how was the Legal Principle of Standing Established?

the states share a contract, the constitution, if Texas doesn't have "standing" to challenge another party to that contract (another state) nobody does

They were Vague for a Reason.

You tell me. Under the definition currently given Texas did not have standing (something that has existed for a 100 years) @William Dinan

thus the second paragraph in the order

@Phil they can tell an other stage how to run a election or interpret its laws. The constitution gives the state the right to run their own election.

And I can say only 100 Years. The Electors Clause was around long before that.

@William Dinan again they appealed to the state process and the states laws , something they don’t have legal standing to

it's that inside baseball thing that I would like to hear @Uncivil Law discuss more

@William Dinan getting rid of that would be a liberal dream btw

@james j the argument was that the state didn't follow its own laws.

@meglide it’s probably a technical law that requires that they be heard

The US Constitution is not a State Law Question.

@William Dinan the states election is a states law question

Again this was what they appealed to @William Dinan

Again Electors....

if it was established outside the elector's clause they do ... I see the caveat on PA election result website as an admission of guilt on that one

If we got rid of standing we could force states to legalize weed @William Dinan again the electors clause is not the issue. They attacked the states own laws which is beyond their ability

@meglide the PA thing was done internally. They recognized the error in procedure and thus technically unconstitutional on the state level, relative to the states own constitution. However the remedy they asked for was not appropriate

Jesus. You don't follow my argument.

@William Dinan you keep appealing to something that wasn’t appealed to