I would like to discuss this in detail because I'm now tending towards the opposite view ... hang on and I'll repost what I posted on @Uncivil Law discord

@William Dinan here you go: okay caveat this with not a lawyer but here's the text of the SCOTUS order: "The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed
as moot." and here's a link discussing standing under section 2 article III of the US Constitution where you find this: "Although the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have: 1) suffered some actual or threatened injury; 2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant; and 3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision" my uneducated guess is that one or more of those three don't apply https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/20-substantial-interest-standing.html

it’s real, but we haven’t seen ‘the rebuttal’ or response to these findings

SCOTUS should have taken the Case because of Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction. Had a Hearing if the Respondents Filed A Motion for Dismissal on Summary Judgment.

next paragraph in SCOTUS order: "Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue." ... grant the motion but not grant other relief (Thomas and Alito)?

Not only Original. It is Exclusive. No place to Appeal.

okay back to standing and how does this principle play out? "3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision" ... so after they declined the PA appeal, did they then conclude that whatever constitutional issue there was a redress would not change the outcome ... PA's own election website shows the count absent of votes turned after election day

For At least the first 100 Years of Federal Jurisprudence we had no Rule or Procedure for "Standing". I can't find that Principle anywhere in the US Constitution or even Federalist Papers.

so how did it arise? that 3rd part is interesting to me because it goes right along with the lines of what @RobertGrulerEsq has been saying about the remedy has to fit the alleged harm ...

Standing and Cause of Action are two very different things.

well did one get pushed into the other? curious

This is not a State Law Question IMO. It it an US Constitutional Issue solely dealing with the Electors Clause.

Damn Chris Wallace is on fire https://youtu.be/cR_9fBQUtwk

How is states modifying their state law on administering an election not a state question

"Plenary Power" to the State Legislature. Not the State Executive or Judicial.

I agree and I think the only portion that touches the Electors Clause is where state admin changes rules that state legislature set ... but if redress of that would not change the outcome then SCOTUS has no need to address it? ... not saying it's what I would have preferred, just saying that is what seems to have occurred

You cant just say plenary power every time you dont want to answer a question 😂

hey I'm trying to learn something here ... <Googles "plenary">

That Power and Obligation was granted under the US Constitution. It is only subject to the US Supreme Court Review. Not a State Court. Only with respect to Electors.

@ejpips All is going according to plan. Just remember our 'arrangement'.

They are asking for the court to allow them to use their power when they cannot use that power

Lol

right so Thomas and Alito are saying we have to let you in the door but wouldn't grant you the relief once inside while the others are saying because we wouldn't grant you the relief we don't have to let you in the door

'Sumpin like 'at

Did I forget to mention how appealing your orange skin tone is to me for some reason I'm not able to articulate.

I believe he is talking about Injunctive Relief.

They may want to change a law outside a special session but that doesnt mean they can ignore the rules

Orange is beautiful.

> Did I forget to mention how appealing your orange skin tone is to me for some reason I'm not able to articulate.
@busillis Perhaps. But I can drink in that flattery as often as you serve it.

I listening to @Uncivil Law very carefully

Good policy. He's good.

I might also like to add at least someone has a plan.

yeah but injunctive relief is the whole thing here ... SCOTUS doesn't stop these states from sending electors to vote today then it's done

@meglide ...albeit a heretic and CCP Soros shill

They went to a judge and said I dont like the law we passed to choose an elector. I'd prefer if the popular vote didnt matter and we have the right to pass a law that picks the electors. They are just like sorry what? You want us to let you break your own law? That's not how this works 😂

They could have even thrown out the votes somehow and states are still arbiters of the will of their people.

Fail

Not really. The President Elect is not established until Congress Accepted the Electoral College Votes next Month.

MCGA... In all of its iterations and permutations.

Hey, I found a link to the full report.

https://www.deepcapture.com/2020/12/antrim-county-computer-forensic-report/

Seems legit.

MCGA!