Forgive a european for the strange question but doesn't this ruling cause a massive problem constitutionally?
Let's assume trump wins the rest of the cases in SCOTUS and gets reelected. Why wouldn't texas still want to secede?
Is there any way for SCOTUS to say "Whoops we were wrong" after the fact, or otherwise change this precedent, or will trump have to impeach 7 of the 9 justices to keep things from falling apart afterwards?
Standing is a legal principle in many Countries around the world. SCOTUS did not look at the evidence or merits of the evidence. The problem was "standing" to bring a case. You must have standing to sue. The Texas case must be filed by someone or a class of people who have standing.
Yes - doesn't this set precedent that states don't have standing to sue other states over violations of the constitution in a federal election? Isn't that a big deal?
They still have the loophole that lack of standing was based on timing. The injury hasn’t happened yet.
I’m not sure that’s what they meant but it’ll be the excuse we use to believe there’s still a constitution. (Like we do with our 2A)
I don't think SCOTUS wants to set the precedent that they can decide an election by one state suing multiple other states. They want each state to solve their issues through their own state legislatures.