TLDR: They said exactly what they meant, and meant exactly what they said. Nothing more and nothing less.
I'm no lawyer, but my interpretation is that it's hidden behind legal speak and some can be inferred by their actions before the dismissal. Basically the reason they cited, "Texas not having standing," means a different party needs to file, like Trump's legal team, and/or it's too early for this type of lawsuit from a legal perspective.
As for the court's actions, they wanted to see what arguments both sides had (And display them to everyone), but they didn't actually say anything about the arguments of either side so they haven't actually ruled out hearing this if it comes from the correct people at the correct time.
Yes, Definitely on to something here. There are already hints about refiling so that standing is corrected.
Sounds almost like a business conference call
TLDR: They said exactly what they meant, and meant exactly what they said. Nothing more and nothing less.
I'm no lawyer, but my interpretation is that it's hidden behind legal speak and some can be inferred by their actions before the dismissal. Basically the reason they cited, "Texas not having standing," means a different party needs to file, like Trump's legal team, and/or it's too early for this type of lawsuit from a legal perspective.
As for the court's actions, they wanted to see what arguments both sides had (And display them to everyone), but they didn't actually say anything about the arguments of either side so they haven't actually ruled out hearing this if it comes from the correct people at the correct time.
https://www (dot) brighteon (dot)com/ channels/ hrreport
Probably all the hope porn getting circle-jerked here and on 4chan.
Or the doom porn on here by people that have no clue about the legal system, but fancy themselves experts.