They did not say Texas had no injury. They said Texas does not get to concern itself with how other states run their elections. It was a terrible statement by the freshman justices.
Lack of standing is because of wrong jurisdiction, or no injury. This would seem the right (original) jurisdiction.
So assume SCOTUS is calling the tabulation of popular vote the "election". Then Texas does not have any interest in how other states run their elections. The only thing that involves Texas is the usage of that tabulation to apply electors, who then vote. Since that hasn't happened, it's true that Texas currently has no judicially cognizable interest (and has suffered no injury).
The alternative is that this is, indeed, the wrong jurisdiction. The only way that would happen is if the case involves treason. (Article III)
Paxton discussed the jurisdiction issue. It is general jurisdiction because scotus is the only remedy for states.
I was under the assumption they were not claiming injury from electors. They were claiming the certification by these states was done under unlawful circumstances(laws were ignored in tabulation).
Yes, laws were ignored; but that's not any of Texas' business (yet); state legislatures get to handle that problem internally. It only affects Texas when states fail to handle it and start casting electoral votes based upon their tainted tabulation. The "voting" (polling) numbers, certified or exalted or sculpted in marble, don't make any difference judicially, politically, or spiritually. They're just narrative fodder.
We vote by electors. State legislatures choose them.
Texans' votes are not diluted if PA runs a corrupt Biden-biased race but sends Trump electors. Maybe they'll do that. Texas has no interest or injury until their actual vote is diluted by PA (et al.)'s taint.
I've seen SCOTUS pull this cryptic crap before. File it a different day, a different way, whatever; and they're all over it.
They did not say Texas had no injury. They said Texas does not get to concern itself with how other states run their elections. It was a terrible statement by the freshman justices.
Lack of standing is because of wrong jurisdiction, or no injury. This would seem the right (original) jurisdiction.
So assume SCOTUS is calling the tabulation of popular vote the "election". Then Texas does not have any interest in how other states run their elections. The only thing that involves Texas is the usage of that tabulation to apply electors, who then vote. Since that hasn't happened, it's true that Texas currently has no judicially cognizable interest (and has suffered no injury).
The alternative is that this is, indeed, the wrong jurisdiction. The only way that would happen is if the case involves treason. (Article III)
Paxton discussed the jurisdiction issue. It is general jurisdiction because scotus is the only remedy for states.
I was under the assumption they were not claiming injury from electors. They were claiming the certification by these states was done under unlawful circumstances(laws were ignored in tabulation).
Yes, laws were ignored; but that's not any of Texas' business (yet); state legislatures get to handle that problem internally. It only affects Texas when states fail to handle it and start casting electoral votes based upon their tainted tabulation. The "voting" (polling) numbers, certified or exalted or sculpted in marble, don't make any difference judicially, politically, or spiritually. They're just narrative fodder.
We vote by electors. State legislatures choose them.
Texans' votes are not diluted if PA runs a corrupt Biden-biased race but sends Trump electors. Maybe they'll do that. Texas has no interest or injury until their actual vote is diluted by PA (et al.)'s taint.
I've seen SCOTUS pull this cryptic crap before. File it a different day, a different way, whatever; and they're all over it.