Apparently you haven't been paying attention. They threw the most important case in American history out on the idea of "standing" that has barely been around for 100 years. They spoke VOLUMES last night. If a State doesn't have standing to challenge another state canceling their vote on the basis of the electoral clause then no one does.
You are correct, but Grief is also correct that the decision is stupid.
A dispute between states is absolutely grounds for a federal court. And considering a federal election outcome affects all 50 states, they also have grounds on being affected by this. They're not entirely separated from the dispute.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. They threw the most important case in American history out on the idea of "standing" that has barely been around for 100 years. They spoke VOLUMES last night. If a State doesn't have standing to challenge another state canceling their vote on the basis of the electoral clause then no one does.
SCOTUS did not say no one has standing. Fake news!
Troll. Go read the statement. States don't have standing to sue other states for electoral fraud using the electoral clause.
You have reading comprehension problems! The case was not about voter fraud. PERIOD! It was about the constitutionality of changing election laws.
The court said states don't have standing in the suit. That is not the same as saying no one would have standing.
You are correct, but Grief is also correct that the decision is stupid.
A dispute between states is absolutely grounds for a federal court. And considering a federal election outcome affects all 50 states, they also have grounds on being affected by this. They're not entirely separated from the dispute.