3 ms·

The argument was literally that the State of Texas has an interest in the elections of other states and was rejected on a lack of standing which is an emphatic

The argument was literally that the State of Texas has an interest in the elections of other states and was rejected on a lack of standing which is an emphatic "No" to the argument.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago
Standing is not merits. These are legal terms that have legal definitions.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Perhaps not in formal legal parlance, but if the top commenter was asking about merits in the common understanding of the term (which stands to reason given they are a non-lawyer) then standing is definitely an aspect of the merits of a case.
  - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
    "Heard on its merits" is a legal phrase as well. I think hexsprite knew exactly what they were trying to say.
    - NoodleIncident 6y ago
      That doesn't mean it was a relevant response to the parent comment, which did not use any legal phrases. They just asked if the case was any good or not. Since 7 justices said they didn't have standing, and the other 2 said it was impossible to grant relief, it's pretty clear that the case as a whole was not any good. Using a misleading legal phrase to imply that the case had non-legalese "merit" that the courts chose to ignore is.. misleading.
      - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
        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.

The argument was literally that the State of Texas has an interest in the elections of other states and was rejected on a lack of standing which is an emphatic "No" to the argument.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago

Standing is not merits. These are legal terms that have legal definitions.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Perhaps not in formal legal parlance, but if the top commenter was asking about merits in the common understanding of the term (which stands to reason given they are a non-lawyer) then standing is definitely an aspect of the merits of a case.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  "Heard on its merits" is a legal phrase as well. I think hexsprite knew exactly what they were trying to say.
  - NoodleIncident 6y ago
    That doesn't mean it was a relevant response to the parent comment, which did not use any legal phrases. They just asked if the case was any good or not. Since 7 justices said they didn't have standing, and the other 2 said it was impossible to grant relief, it's pretty clear that the case as a whole was not any good. Using a misleading legal phrase to imply that the case had non-legalese "merit" that the courts chose to ignore is.. misleading.
    - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
      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.