This may be a flimsy theory but I was just thinking, what if "standing" is just a red herring?
Is it possible that due to the influence of a foreign power in this case, the issue isn't that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing, but that the courts themselves lack jurisdiction?
Q always said the military was the only way--is it possible that military courts are the only way too when election fraud involves foreign actors?
No, standing seems like a red herring because people view the election incorrectly. The POTUS is elected by the electoral college. The constitution does not contemplate widespread, public elections for that office. It's open-ended, so states can pick their electors however they want, including by holding sham / show "elections" to pacify their citizens, etc. But it most directly contemplates that the State Legislatures were vote on Electors every four years... and whoever controls the State Legislature will effectively end up controlling that state's Electoral votes.
As long as every state gets their electoral votes to cast, and no state submits too many electoral votes... it doesn't affect the other states.
The SCOTUS has the right view. Georgia's Legislature had it's pick. They could have sued. They could have said the Secretary of State had gone rogue and violated the conditions of his limited authority.... but the Georgia Legislature - who's the one in charge of this - was okay with Biden electors. The red herring is the "election" itself. Electors aren't elected by the public, they're appointed.