I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I cant imagine they have standing...

Did you read the complaint?

The Supreme Court has taken up cases in the past that are State vs State.

Well, there's one argument to be made about standing, if what another state does how it conducts its election affects all other states in the union. 🤷 It's a longshot, but not entirely invalid.

I did... Did you read the PA response that they posted this morning? It takes apart the Kelly case. And when that is decided, the TX case will be moot.

Nope, haven't made it that far, yet.

At least the PA part. The other 3 weren't even challenged in their own states.

Did they rule on the PA in SCOTUS yet?

Nothing posted yet.

Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum, you’ll read the complaints one way or the other

Some people say it’s a great claim, others say it’s useless

Meh, that state's response sounds like a bunch more of the same that got the case to SCOTUS in the first place.

This article seems to think it’s a compelling case. Others will read the filing and completely dismiss it.

When I read the Kelly complaint, I thought they made a compelling case. I didn't know how they could justify the relief they sought, but I thought it was compelling, nonetheless. Then I read the PA case and they did a masterful job of breaking it all down. I don't see how the petitioners case holds up against the response. Check it out. If I thought the response was garbage, I would say so.

I did learn a new word, though... I did not realize "militate" was a word...

@jfindley, you just advanced to level 11!

But really..there are only 9 people in this country who opinion actually matters right now.

My oldest son whines sometimes that his younger brothers get away with things he couldn't when he was their age, too...

My older children took that concept and learned to use their younger sibling to get what they want from me..

You're just a softie, then... 😉

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/texas-fraud-suit/

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers.

I mean I would think if rules were changed to an extent to affect a federal election and impact all states such as Texas I would think that gives them standing

The argument may be that the other State(s) Violated the US Constitution and as a result Texas suffered a Harm.

Yeah that is what I was thinking

This people are working over time hours..

@thebrodys. They only have to convince Five of them...

https://www.scribd.com/document/487355893/Scotus-Filing

The PA Respondent's case is really interesting... They claim that Act 77 (which is a statute and never intended to be an amendment to the PA constitution - despite claims that the legislature "forgot" to vote on it again) made a new class of voting called "Mail-In" that is distinctly different than Absentee, which is spelled out in the Act itself and cite precedents where PA legislatures made similar changes to the voting laws in the past. It also says that there is a clause in Act 77 itself that says any claims about the constitutionality of Act 77 had to be filed within 180 days of its passing, because they needed to time to deal with any potential issues ahead of the primaries and election. They then go on to breakdown all of the ways it should fail - technically and on merit. It's very compelling to a lay person like me.

Ok, ok. The last billion attempts were pathetic but the next one is the biggest yet! Just a couple more days!

@TaLoN132. Yes I find it interesting that they admit they changed the Law on Election Process. They just forgot a minor step of Amending the State Constitution to do it!

...and then held that in their back pocket to exploit if things didn't go their way.

Like hey guys it's cool we didn't change the constitution, just the voting rules

Don't even trip

Votes in good faith. Will of the people is known. Game over.

@Zuluzeit it is either extremely Stupid or Brilliant?....lol

Apparently, this has been done that way in PA before... They cite much precedent to that effect.

@William Dinan hahaha little from column A. Little from column B.

@William Dinan PA is allowed to decide for themselves how they maintain their constitution. Every state has their own way of doing things. The US Constitution is shy on specifics on what or how each legislature is supposed to go about doing things on purpose.

...unless it's inconvenient. Then federal intervention.