36 Ya'll read the Michigan rebuttal? uhhhhhhh "Not true." SAD (www.supremecourt.gov) posted 128 days ago by AmazonKevin 128 days ago by AmazonKevin +36 / -0 18 comments share 18 comments share save hide report block hide child comments Comments (18) sorted by: top new old worst You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread. ▲ 3 ▼ – acasper 3 points 128 days ago +3 / -0 “To begin, Texas has not alleged a sufficient case or controversy to support its standing to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction.” Kek permalink save report block reply ▲ 1 ▼ – 6ft7WeighsAnFingTon 1 point 128 days ago +2 / -1 The matter of standing is actually the simplest and clearest issue of all. Whoever is elected president of the USA is...president of all the states, yes? So if one or more states unlawfully affect the outcome of the presidential election, they are affecting every state in the union... permalink parent save report block reply ▲ 2 ▼ – acasper 2 points 128 days ago +2 / -0 I’d agree with that logic. We will see if SCOTUS does as well. permalink parent save report block reply
“To begin, Texas has not alleged a sufficient case or controversy to support its standing to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction.”
Kek
The matter of standing is actually the simplest and clearest issue of all.
Whoever is elected president of the USA is...president of all the states, yes?
So if one or more states unlawfully affect the outcome of the presidential election, they are affecting every state in the union...
I’d agree with that logic. We will see if SCOTUS does as well.