[Alberta's Child]

What’s ironic is that a competent constitutional lawyer would have known that many of the measures taken to challenge the results of the 2020 election were futile at best and (in many cases) lacked any constitutional basis.

In a hypothetical question example that played out multiple times in 2020, State X has no legal standing to use the Federal courts to compel State Y to enforce its own election laws. This is where the infamous Texas lawsuit was destined to fall flat on its face regardless of the actual facts of the case.

[central_va]

Election fraud denial syndrome is strong in you.

[marktwain]

In your hypothetical, who does have legal standing to use the federal courts to force a state to follow its own election laws, or more likely, to follow Constitutional requirements?

[enumerated]

“In a hypothetical question example that played out multiple times in 2020, State X has no legal standing to use the Federal courts to compel State Y to enforce its own election laws. This is where the infamous Texas lawsuit was destined to fall flat on its face regardless of the actual facts of the case.”

If it was destined to fail, it was not because it lacked merit, but because the SC lacked depth.

The presidential election is a nationwide election - every voter and every state has an equal stake in how it is decided. PA, GA, AZ, WI, and MI failed to prevent election fraud in their large Democrat controlled urban counties, putting the wrong candidate in the Oval Office.

How do the State of Texas and the other 21 states that joined that lawsuit lack standing?

It was a bad SC decision.