Hypotheticaly, even if interpretation of Texas and Ohio were correct, it would have been an ENORMOUS injustice to use a legal technicality to disenfranchise millions of voters who complied by what they were told the rules were.

David Singer they spend thousands of words on nonsense because they know the points you raise are valid. They also know Trump won in a landslide.
Word is the court didn't want to be the ones responsible for the inevitable rioting. Or more accurately the chief justice didn't want the court to be blamed. They dodged.
Probably safe to assume they grabbed the matter of standing to escape liability for ignoring the valid claims of the suit.
Of course the court read the suit and of course they saw the validity of it's claims. Why else would they throw the rest aside as "moot"?
It's more of the silly excuse of not wanting to disenfranchise "voters" being repeated in state courts. I read that as a dodge as well. To me these are excuses to avoid the subject of electoral laws being a matter for state legislatures.
I'm not a scholar of US law so I'm guided by my instincts and those are seeing a distinct tell tale pattern in the claims and reactions of the anti Trump element.
The ballots received and counted only in accordance with unlegislated changes are invalid.
That's what the anti Trumpers and the courts themselves are telling us. Otherwise why would they so consistently angrily react to the subject?

We know they know.

At the moment it's looking like the law doesn't exist in the US. If it does then the state level electoral crimes reached their highest level with the electoral college vote. Same with Biden accepting the college vote.

David,

Can any state or territory government here lean over the shoulder of any other state or territory government and tell it what to do ?

No.

Can any State or territory government demand from the Australian High Court that it tell it to do so ?

No.

Similar, so it seems, in the US. One state can't dictate that the Supreme Court there leans over the shoulder of any other state and do things in the way that the first one wants.

Even Justice Coney Barrett has told the Texas marshals to bugger off.

There's your answer. Now YOU can bugger off.

Joe

Ah, the US election scene - a laugh a minute :)

Now this beauty:

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/donald-trump-shares-post-saying-republican-leaders-in-georgia-will-soon-be-going-to-jail/news-story/59dfd8991e19fc40a1b474f76c4ef354

Case after case put to the courts, including the Supreme Court (a third of whose members Trumpf appointed), and no victory whatsoever. Then this sort of stuff, calling for Republicans to be jailed - calls supported by Trumpf.

So, as the Senate run-off election in Georgia approaches, three weeks away, the Republicans are trying to eat each other, or at least spit each other out. If the Republicans lose those two Senate seats, then the Democrats - and worse still, a black woman - and worse, worse still, a woman of MIXED ancestry (so much against god's law !) - will have the casting vote. The Senate won't be white-controlled as is its the god-given right, ever again.

So there's the Chief Clown and his Fat Boys and their Toys, and the Confederate Republicans on one side, with their slogan, of 'Make America White Again'. There's the American people, the Supreme Court, the President-elect and Vice-President-elect, on the other side. And what does Trumpf do ? Start up his own Comedy Show. So funny !

SNL and Borat, retire NOW !

Joe

jamo,
All the evidence shows Trump LOST in a landslide.

Far from being a silly excuse, not wanting to disenfranchise millions of voters is a crucial feature of democracy! If you don't recognise that, I think you've lost sight of the purpose of elections.

Although I suspect your real position is based on the outcome not the laws, and that you'd be railing agains the President of Venezuela if he tried the same stunt!

American electoral laws are indeed a matter for state legislatures. So if the state legislatures inadvertently created a problem, they should fix it with retrospective legislation so that the validity of votes matches what the government and the people believed it to be. Justice demands no less!

However, it is far from clear that the problem even exists. Firstly I'd not be at all surprised if state legislation already exists giving the executive the power to make these administrative changes. Secondly it is not clear how crucial these changes really are to the validity of the votes. And thirdly, as the state legislature did not challenge the executive before the election, there is likely to be a strong case for validity by estoppel.

Either way, bureaucracy should not trump democracy.

Quite straightforward;
The US Supreme Court said Texas had "No Standing".
As far as I can gather that means "No appearance" or "No Recognition"
Texas was as if it was invisible.
Bit like you turning up at a NSW court with a claim against Victoria.