[K-oneTexas]

They set it aside not because of the issue (voter fraud) but rather saying that the GOP is not a party who is harmed. Individual voters are harmed, the GOP isn't a registered voter.

I wouldn't want the USSC to hear it if it is flawed. Nor would I what the USSC to hear it and amend it to give a ruling, right or wrong.

What precedent would that set for lower courts? Could could begin issuing any decision related to the case or not.

[MayflowerMadam]

“They set it aside not because of the issue ...”

I didn’t like that when it happened, but I understood it. Then I wondered why someone “with standing” didn’t take the issue to SCOTUS. Maybe it’ll happen...

[plain talk]

exactly. one would think the republican party would understand what “standing” is.

[DBrow]

I agree.

That’s why, in Heller, they chose plaintiffs very carefully, so that it was plain who the aggrieved party seeking redress was.

If the GOP had formed a coalition of say 20 registered in-state voters and had them make the filing, the case probably would have been heard.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>They set it aside not because of the issue (voter fraud) but rather saying that the GOP is not a party who is harmed. Individual voters are harmed, the GOP isn’t a registered voter.<<

That does not explain why the USDOJ does not file against Brunner. I wrote them an email complaining about this. Don’t expect them to do their job, but thought I would try.