EXCLUSIVE!!! THE LAWSUIT WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR! Fauci and His COVID-19 Henchmen Sued to Personally Pay For Their Abuses!

So no true conservative should object that he or she didn't suffer real, identifiable damage when Biden's "win" was certified despite executive branch officials in their states having not complied with statutory law? They had no standing, remember.

Assuming that you're talking about Pennsylvania and the suits filed on the election there I don't recall any dismissed for lack of standing. Some were dismissed for other reasons, others were ruled against and went through the appeals process up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Some were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to take the case, but again standing didn't play into it. If you are referring to a specific case then perhaps you could identify it?

The state of Texas, and other states wishing to join the action against Pennsylvania, had no "real, identifiable damage" to object to the fact that Constitution was violated when the PA SoS failed to run an election in accordance with statute, and the PA governor certified those results?

No, they did not. How Pennsylvania manages its elections is Pennsylvania's business just as how Texas manages its elections it Texas' business.

All of those illegal aliens invading Texas aren't a burden to Texas, right?

How is that relevant to this discussion.

No court could issue an injunction to stop the steal?

Absent evidence then no court could issue such a ruling.

No, they did not. How Pennsylvania manages its elections is Pennsylvania's business just as how Texas manages its elections it Texas' business.

Right, and if Texas wanted to secede from the Union, that was Texas's business, not Pennsylvania's. If Texas wanted to have slaves that was Texas's business, not Pennsylvania. You make interesting arguments, but the historical record is different. There is also the small matter of the Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which requires a "Republican form of government". In the language of the 18th Century, a guarantee by a state implied the use of force if necessary to impose it. Now, the Roberts Court says it is meaningless language, and one state can't demand that another state comply with its constitutional obligations. If the courts won't enforce the Guarantee Clause, what option is left to save the Republic?

How is that relevant to this discussion.

You appear to be suggesting that Texas suffered no damages from the installation of an illegitimate "president".

Absent evidence then no court could issue such a ruling.

Without discovery and subpoenas, the courts won't see the evidence, and things go around in logical circles like a dog chasing its tail.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.