Yes, in the real world, the citizens of Texas were actually harmed by the fuckery of
bad actors in the four defendant states. I suspect the SC didn't want to allow a precedent of states suing other states after federal elections and their no standing argument was the best they could come up with.
ok this is interesting because it contains the same legalese as SCOTUS
if plaintiffs with standing under Article III and judicially cognizable interest file the same sort of case with SCOTUS, they must rule
is she building a case of people who lost their vote due to mail in ballots going to the wrong people or something to that effect?
Except that for a state vs state matter it can only be settled in the Supreme Court.
Nah... it can also be settled in 1865 fashion.
No it's like suing the guy who ran into your neighbor's car... your neighbor needs to sue, not you. Pretty basic common law doctrine.
But their stance was, my voters were impacted by their illegal voting.
Yes, in the real world, the citizens of Texas were actually harmed by the fuckery of bad actors in the four defendant states. I suspect the SC didn't want to allow a precedent of states suing other states after federal elections and their no standing argument was the best they could come up with.
A better analogy is imagining those shingles blowing off in a storm and damaging the neighbor's (Texas) property.
Good analogy.
No this is like your neighbor cutting a tree and it falls on your house.