That is true. But the same could be argued for California wanting to sue Indiana for their strict voter ID laws. If the SC allowed this case, there would be a plethora of such cases in the future.
Also, the way Texas filed the case was by invoking the SC's original jurisdiction. Meaning only Texas must have standing. This isn't the case.
Our best hope is for the contested state's AGs and Republican-led legislatures to file cases.
In that case, Texas must demonstrate that only Texas has standing and no other state. That's the other requirement for invoking the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS. And I think it's difficult to convince the court. Not impossible, but difficult.
It simply depends on whether or not the judges want to hear the case. The courts in the US have repeatedly demonstrated that they want to be politicians, not judges. This goes all the way from county level courts to the supreme court, as shown by what they did in the past month.
You can't sue before - no damage, no standing
You can't sue during - no damage, no standing
You can't sue after - you sued too late, laches
Whether or not Texas, or anyone, can demonstrate standing literally doesn't matter. The judges will throw out everything by making up bs excuses.
Also do you really expect any of the deep state and the liberal activist judges to hear the case and then rule according to the constitution? Come on.
SCOTUS could have heard the case if they wanted to, that is correct.
All I'm saying is that in order to legally invoke SCOTUS' original jurisdiction, there are requirements that need to be fulfilled - and TX was not able to do so.
That is true. But the same could be argued for California wanting to sue Indiana for their strict voter ID laws. If the SC allowed this case, there would be a plethora of such cases in the future.
Also, the way Texas filed the case was by invoking the SC's original jurisdiction. Meaning only Texas must have standing. This isn't the case.
Our best hope is for the contested state's AGs and Republican-led legislatures to file cases.
CA should absolutely sue if they feel that Indiana voter ID laws jeopardized a federal election and I see 0 problem with this.
In that case, Texas must demonstrate that only Texas has standing and no other state. That's the other requirement for invoking the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS. And I think it's difficult to convince the court. Not impossible, but difficult.
It simply depends on whether or not the judges want to hear the case. The courts in the US have repeatedly demonstrated that they want to be politicians, not judges. This goes all the way from county level courts to the supreme court, as shown by what they did in the past month.
You can't sue before - no damage, no standing You can't sue during - no damage, no standing You can't sue after - you sued too late, laches
Whether or not Texas, or anyone, can demonstrate standing literally doesn't matter. The judges will throw out everything by making up bs excuses.
Also do you really expect any of the deep state and the liberal activist judges to hear the case and then rule according to the constitution? Come on.
SCOTUS could have heard the case if they wanted to, that is correct.
All I'm saying is that in order to legally invoke SCOTUS' original jurisdiction, there are requirements that need to be fulfilled - and TX was not able to do so.