So let me get this straight. These so-called high powered lawyers
   mis-estimated whether SCOTUS would assume Texas has standing (standing
   is the first basic test to determine in a U.S. court if a plaintiff is
   qualified to bring a suit). Give me a break! Only 2nd or 3rd string
   constitutional lawyers could make this error.

   On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 7:36 AM Zenaan Harkness <[1]zen@freedbms.net>
   wrote:

     On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 06:17:23PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
     >    Citing a lack of standing, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a
     brief order that the state "has not demonstrated a judicially
     cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts
     its elections," adding "All other pending motions are dismissed as
     moot."
     >
     >    Supreme Court Tosses Texas Bid To Overturn Election
     >
     [2]https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-tosses-texas-bi
     d-overturn-election
     >
     >
     >
     > Well, citizens of the swing states have standing, so they can
     file.
     >
     > Trumpers, both legal eagles and folks in their personal capacity,
     in the 4 swing states (GA, PA, WI, MI?) need to file this case from
     their home turf, as their interest is surely direct and personal -
     effected personally.
     >
     > I guess this is new territory for some folks...
     Once parties with sufficient standing ARE properly filed and listed,
     the Amicus Curiae 19 states can still join in support.
     Just need lots of folks WITH standing in the 4 swing states at issue
     - this is what SCOTUS implied "insufficient standing", i.e. we need
     folks who DO have standing!
     Voters in GA, PA, MI, WI, each DO have direct standing.  Folks from
     EACH of these 4 states must now file, in order to solve this
     technicality of "insufficient standing".
     Good luck from Aus!

References

   1. mailto:zen@freedbms.net
   2. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-tosses-texas-bid-overturn-election