[Dr. Franklin]

So no true conservative should believe that the party suing must have suffered real, identifiable damage or will suffer real identifiable damage if the action they are suing over is allowed to continue? No true conservative believes that the party being sued must the party who caused that damage? No real conservative believes that the court must be able to redress the damage caused through their ruling? That's what true conservatives should believe?

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? 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? All of those illegal aliens invading Texas aren't a burden to Texas, right? No court could issue an injunction to stop the steal?

Really?

C'mon, man!

[DoodleDawg]

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.