> But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.
From my understanding, the lower courts haven't looked at that argument yet, since the question "do these people even have standing to sue" comes before any arguments.
Wouldn't the lack of standing be an aspect of the merits of the suit? In any case, the supreme court isn't the sole judge of the merits of a case, they are just the arbiters of the outcome.
It's a poor legal argument, but seems like a solid civics arguments. Sadly they aren't trying to appeal to the public or lawmakers, they are trying to appeal to the judge, so it seems like wasted effort.
I don't think the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, they've just refused to vacate the stay that is preventing the lower court's ruling from taking effect yet.
This looks like a temporary injunction only and doesn't by itself establish any precedent. IANAL, but my understanding is that the court usually only evaluates whether that claim of harm is plausible and whether the burden put on the other party is too big to be justified when the final ruling is in their favor. The merits of the main arguments in the case aren't considered - that's what the main trial is for.
No, if they wanted to deny the case on its merits they could have done so. They chose to deny standing instead, probably to avoid pissing a lot of people off. They did not say it was impossible to grant relief, they said they would not grant relief. What this means is open to interpretation, for example, they could rule that the elections were conducted in violation of the Elections Clause but that it is up to the state legislatures to decide which electors to appoint, which would actually be a good outcome for the Trump campaign.
In order to say whether the case is good or not you would have to point to something specific that makes it legally weak. E.g. controlling precedent. Standing has no bearing on the merits of the case, so everyone using standing as an argument is not making a real argument but is just playing a shell game.
Well at this point there's only one higher court they could go to (if they'd even take up the case). Frankly the case law on this subject is pretty well established and the judges have just been following existing precedent.
The case went to the Supreme Court. It wasn't tried in any lower courts because cases between states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court can reject a case for lack of standing (the plaintiff does not have the right to sue the defendant) or for lack of merit (the lawsuit is obviously frivolous). They can also reject it if they think the lower court ruled correctly, but that doesn't apply here.
From my understanding, the lower courts haven't looked at that argument yet, since the question "do these people even have standing to sue" comes before any arguments.
reply