I think the Supreme Court should have heard the case so as to give a clear message and bring down judgement for clarity.
As for standing, I am not sure it would be wise to allow states to sue other states for how they conduct their business. For example, what would stop California for suing Texas over gun laws?
Even if Texas did have standing, there is also a requirement that only Texas can bring up the case in order to invoke the SC's original jurisdiction. The fact that DJT was intervening in the case makes this a difficult one to argue.
Personally, I believe the cases with the best chances of getting a hearing are the ones filed by the Trump campaign. They have unquestionable standing.
Texas sued for illegal and fraudulent election causing damage to their national representation. It has nothing to do with what the PA election laws are, but PA's election did violate the US constitution.
As a professor you should be able to understand that every state in the US has the same president and VP.
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.
So...what’s your opinion about Texas not having standing to sue another state, etc?
I think the Supreme Court should have heard the case so as to give a clear message and bring down judgement for clarity.
As for standing, I am not sure it would be wise to allow states to sue other states for how they conduct their business. For example, what would stop California for suing Texas over gun laws?
Even if Texas did have standing, there is also a requirement that only Texas can bring up the case in order to invoke the SC's original jurisdiction. The fact that DJT was intervening in the case makes this a difficult one to argue.
Personally, I believe the cases with the best chances of getting a hearing are the ones filed by the Trump campaign. They have unquestionable standing.
Texas sued for illegal and fraudulent election causing damage to their national representation. It has nothing to do with what the PA election laws are, but PA's election did violate the US constitution.
As a professor you should be able to understand that every state in the US has the same president and VP.
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.