[JohnBovenmyer]

Tracy Beanz has been following this case since the beginning. She says this ruling on Missouri v Biden is ONLY about no proof of standing for future harm, hence the overruled temporary injunction. Scotus didn't look at whether there was standing for past harm in suit as a whole, which continues in lower courts. So it's a setback, but not finality. Check out her video and pending posts for for further explanation.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Exactly, it wasn’t a decision based on merit, but standing. What seems odd is the amount of time to decide something so pedestrian. CFW thinks some late jawboning was involved.

[CFW]

Yeah, Tracy Beanz is pretty good. I’ve followed her commentary on the case for the past couple of years.

That’s what I commented up-thread. That it is only about an injunction on future actions and the Court ruled they had no standing for a temporary injunction. I’m still reading through the ruling.

My computer had the audacity to just shut down when I was about at page 15 (of 66) of the opinion, so I took it as a sign to step and away and lay off the coffee for a while.