SCOTUS ruled on three cases that they did not have standing and dismissed them, it was a unanimous vote by them - the biggest was Texas v. Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court, you should look it up! It's an interesting read and it seems like you don't really know much about it.
That's a great ruling, I've read a ton about it and it has nothing to do with the 2020 election. Go back and read what I wrote. Of the few that were tossed for no standing, only three were candidates, and two of those were tossed by Trump appointed judges.
This doesn't change anything I wrote, it's a completely different scenario, no matter what podcasters and twitter folk tell you.
Real question, did you read the scotusblog post you sent me?
SCOTUS ruled on three cases that they did not have standing and dismissed them, it was a unanimous vote by them - the biggest was Texas v. Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court, you should look it up! It's an interesting read and it seems like you don't really know much about it.
Those were the 2020/2021 cases. There was one recently that flipped the script.
Link me to it please
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/court-holds-that-all-candidates-can-challenge-rules-governing-vote-counting-in-elections/
This is not the same thing at all.
What are your thoughts on this recent SCOTUS ruling? YOU seem to not know much about it, IMO..
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/court-holds-that-all-candidates-can-challenge-rules-governing-vote-counting-in-elections/
That's a great ruling, I've read a ton about it and it has nothing to do with the 2020 election. Go back and read what I wrote. Of the few that were tossed for no standing, only three were candidates, and two of those were tossed by Trump appointed judges.
This doesn't change anything I wrote, it's a completely different scenario, no matter what podcasters and twitter folk tell you.
Real question, did you read the scotusblog post you sent me?
What an absurd statement.
Lay it out smart guy