As I understand it, nineteen individual states sued 4 or 5 other states, challenging the constitutionality of the defendant states’ election procedures.
So, one can understand, kinda, why the Supreme Court decided the case based on lack of standing. Did Pa’s voting procedures cause any direct injury to Texas as a state entity?
Maybe they were thinking, if we entertain this suit, a similar one will be brought after every election. Maybe they were thinking, if we entertain this suit, the Dems will definitely pack the court and instead of being a member of a prestigious Club of Nine, well all be just one voice outta , idk, 26 or so. The threat of court-packing worked for FDR.
Too bad those states didn’t try for “organizational standing”: form an entity, a club, an Association, and sue on behalf of members who allege direct individual injury. (It’s a shame “Organization of American States”) is taken.) This is called “public interest standing”.
But then, the Supreme Court wouldnta had original jurisdiction. The suit could only be filed there because it was a dispute between states. If another entity were the plaintiff, they’d a had to start in the lower courts, and the case would never reach SCOTUS by January.
So ya see what I’m saying’? In order to get directly to SCOTUS, (the rock) they had to forego their best argument for standing: public interest or organizational standing (the hard place.)
I will not look any more. Outside my window as the sky lightens, it’s snowing—and we may get a foot on Wednesday! Yay—a white Christmas 🤞!
ST UnWoked & UnVaxxed! 
It is snowing here too 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting footnote here:
“Justice Samuel Alito filed a short statement regarding the court’s disposition of the case that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Alito and Thomas have previously argued that the Supreme Court must take up any case that properly invokes its original jurisdiction, and Alito repeated that belief here. Therefore, Alito explained, he would allow Texas to file its lawsuit, but he “would not grant other relief.” Moreover, Alito added, he “express[ed] no view on any other issue” raised in the case.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
So maybe he means he wouldn’t have granted an injunction? That’s interesting—I had seen this and I thought he meant he would not have dismissed the case summarily, , but he would have ruled for the defendants.
LikeLiked by 2 people