[GrumpyOldGuy]

The supreme court lost all legitimacy when it refused to hear the valid complaints of Texas and other states when they were protesting the 2020 election. They said the state had no standing, what a crock.

[Alberta's Child]

The Supreme Court almost certainly made the correct decision when it ruled that one state has no standing to file a legal challenge over another state’s process for certifying presidential electors — or over any matter of state law, when you think about it.

If the Federal courts were to recognize the legitimacy of a state to file a suit like this, then the courts would inevitable be required to establish a uniform national standard for presidential elections. This is a direct contradiction of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. And I would also point out that any “uniform national standard” for elections would have the loosest controls in place right now — like ballot harvesting, mail-in ballots collected for weeks, minimal registration requirements, etc.

[Dr. Franklin]

The supreme court lost all legitimacy when it refused to hear the valid complaints of Texas and other states when they were protesting the 2020 election. They said the state had no standing, what a crock.

SCOTUS refused to hear a case between the states under its original jurisdiction. It decided that the election results were a "political decision", not a legal one, and thus relied on the relatively novel and nebulous concept of "standing" to dodge the issue. Now SCOTUS may be seeking to blame the Congresscritters who failed to investigate the fraud. True, they didn't, but it was SCOTUS who first refused to hear the case.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Agree, they have about the same validity as CNN.