postman
Diamond Member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 19,604
- 10,773
- 1,250
Post No. 2 does not provide the Supreme Court's rational and legal reasoning to substantiate Texas did not have standing, nor does post No. 2 document why the Court asserted the Texas lawsuit did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections.
JWK
To put it into terms you can easily understand. The court grants standing to parties that have a particularized interest. In short, if your interest in a controversy is no greater than that of any other possible party (generalized harm) than you do not have standing.
In the case of Texas, it was harmed no more than the other 48 states and 3 territories, over what Pennsylvania did. The party with standing would have been Pennsylvania, or the candidates, as the parties actually harmed.