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.

standing but no relief

The problem is that there have been several cases now where President Trump's legal teams have been afforded the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses... and every time they either declined or they presented woefully inadequate "evidence" that did not stand up to scrutiny. There is no fire, there isn't even a wisp of smoke. It was almost certainly a delay tactic where they hoped to raise enough doubt that states would not certify the vote and it would result in a contingent election where the House majority delegations would choose the President. See:

https://news.yahoo.com/judge-appointed-trump-heard-case-064713769.html

Or

https://www.azmirror.com/2020/12/08/arizona-supreme-court-to-decide-azgop-chairs-attempt-to-overturn-election/

Or

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/why-trumps-lawsuit-seeking-to-overturn-nevadas-presidential-race-sputtered-in-court

No Standing and no relief, but yes to hearing @meglide

@jimmy two There is precedent for Trump claiming fraud in elections - every single election he has been part of going back to the 2003 Emmy's. Trump even claimed widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election and created the Voter Integrity Commission to prove that Clinton did not win the popular election. After 2 years of trying, VP Pence and Kobach disbanded the commission when they were unable to find any proof. When they failed to produce a report of their results, a group investigated that the commission had started drafting a report with conclusions of fraud, but the evidence was blank, because they were unable to find any. https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d

Bear in mind that this time period coincides with Russ Ramsland's investigation into Dominion when he lost his mind over losing his congressional campaign. Nobody takes him seriously - not even Pence/Koback - because he is a straight up nutcase - the Deep State was formed in Nazi Germany as a coalition between the Muslim Brotherhood, Herbert Bush, George Soros (who was born in 1930), and Antifa (who were in cahoots with the Nazis). https://www.vice.com/en/article/mbwgxx/texas-tea-partiers-are-freaking-out-over-deep-state-conspiracy-theories (If you don't believe the Vice article, you can see the video: https://youtu.be/bCNkGSk6AxM?t=2004)

@jimmy two This guy Ramsland is the best expert that they could bring forward to inspect the Dominion machines in Michigan?

https://www.ntd.com/dominion-software-intentionally-designed-to-influence-election-results-forensics-report_540175.html

You don't hire Ramsland to be your expert because you expect him to be thorough or impartial. You bring him in to give you the conclusion you want.