From what I understand, SCOTUS denied Texas' standing on claims that they were not personally injured in the case of election fraud. If you read the statement, it does not suggest that it is ignoring claims of fraud. I know it is easy to feel demoralized, so take a break from the internet and take some breaths (that's what I did and it helped). This one ruling doesn't mean that another case can't go to SCOTUS. I understand the suspicion surrounding the judges at this moment, and keep that skepticism. All I'm trying to say is that this ruling doesn't cancel other possible (and successful) lawsuits. Stand strong my friends, and remain ever vigilant.
Comments (24)
sorted by:
"No standing" and "no merit" are two different things. No merit means there was no harm done, no standing means there was no harm done TO YOU.
Texas' argument was creative but unprecedented. Cases without precedent often times end with "no standing".
Texas did what Texas does best and it started shooting early. But their court challenge was unprecedented. The fact that two justices thought there was standing is an interesting outcome. Kudos to them. But i personally can't blame the others for tossing that suit. Creating a standing precedent for that suit would open the flood gates to states suing eachother over election procedures in the future, clogging the court so no legitimate cases can get there. Keep in mind that what Texas tried now could be tried by California tomorrow