[rdcbn1]

The Texas case was the wrong case for the SCOTUS to accept as a basis to overturn the election.

That was the whole problem with accepting the Texas law suit - the law was on the side of President Trump but it was a horrible reason to overturn a Presidential election because it would have been perceived as overturning the election based on a chicken s**t technicality

[Dr. Sivana]

horrible reason to overturn a Presidential election

This is NOT "overturning an election", it is trying to come up with a correct Constitutional result when a bunch of dirty deep staters pee and defecate in the voters' swimming pool.

[Kickass Conservative]

It wouldn’t “overturn” an Election, it would validate the Legal Votes and invalidate the Illegal Votes in the Election.

[Alberta's Child]

I've been saying for days that the REAL litigants should have been the state legislatures themselves.

That's probably what Texas wanted to accomplish anyway. The only reason NOT to include Nevada among the named defendants was that Nevada has a Democratic legislature, unlike the other four states named in the lawsuit.

[Avalon Memories]

So you think the Texas suit was “horrible.” Then what remedy does exist in a situation like this? If an election is clearly stolen, what remedy exists? Seems to me the answer is no remedy exists. Sure, there is the theoretical sending it to the Congress, but there is no genuine opportunity to prove the theft and no remedy to fix it even when the steal is obvious as it is in this situation. So must we just accept the situation?

[grey_whiskers]

You're wrong, troll.

[crz]

That law suit would NOT have overturned any election.

It would have forced the state of PA, to explain how they could make laws, and enforce them, outside their legislature in elections and not effect all the other states.

You need to read the 14th amendment.

Because of their (scotus) cowardice, we no longer have a constitution and therefore states need not abide by it.

[Widget Jr]

I’m not a lawyer and not good at reading legalese. Did Texas argue that these states did not follow their own laws, which with the mass of evidence shows the elections in their states were rigged and disenfranchised Texas voters, or did they go for more nuanced points of law?

[SmokingJoe]

You don't now what you are taking about.

The Supreme Court's Rejection Of Texas's Election Lawsuit Failed The Constitution

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/14/the-supreme-courts-rejection-of-texass-election-lawsuit-failed-the-constitution/

[Tejas Rob]

> it would have been perceived as overturning the election based on a chicken s**t technicality

The US Constitution is not a “chickenshit technicality”.