From the article:
“If the state doesn’t have standing, surely the president of the United States has standing. And certainly the electors in the states have standing. So they will be bringing those very cases right in those courts, starting today,” Giuliani said. “And let’s see what excuse they can try to use to avoid having a hearing on that.”
Texas has already been told that they can’t bring the case, because the state does not have standing.
However, President Trump and individual electors in the state can bring the case as a plaintiff. I hope they get some state legislators to sign on as plaintiffs, because they can argue that they have been injured by the usurpation of legislative power by state executives (mostly Secretaries of State) and state courts by changing election laws without going through the normal legislative process.
The difference is that the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over suits between 2 or more states, which means that the case would be tried in front of the U.S. Supreme Court - it would not be an appeal of decisions from lower courts.
With President Trump or electors in different states as the plaintiffs, they have to go through the lower courts first, where most courts have refused to even take a real look at the evidence.
Unlike most cases with original jurisdiction (suits between 2 or more states), SCOTUS has the discretion with appellate cases to not hear the appeal - they don’t even have to give a reason.
I’ve been thinking more about this standing thing at SCOTUS ...
I saw a good argument along the lines of you don’t want NY to be able to sue TX to prevent energy production ...
BUT the recent TX case pertained to the Electors Clause and that is what was relevant here.