@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

My discussion has always been "Should". Not arguing "Was". It is a discussion on a Legal Position.

You stated standing was bs

It is not @William Dinan

My position. You disagree.

The court doesnt like election problems therefore change electors.
They also dont like no problems therefore electors. How are they going to say there is no issue grant me my electoral clause.

Yeah I have been disagreeing the entire time. @William Dinan

This has nothing to do with the electors clause @William Dinan

procedure wise is his argument ... outcome might still be the same ... he's siding with Thomas and Alito so he's in good company

Thomas and Alito could have still have stated they have no standing after hearing them out. They just wanted to take the next technical step

The other judges saw it as a extra step that they didn’t need to take

^^ bingo

Or didn’t hold to the same interpretation of having to hear them

But they still would have said no standing

Which is not bs

That is Williams argument

Summary Judgment after a Hearing.