THREAD re: standing and the Texas case.
1) Let's say you're crossing the street with your best friend, when suddenly, out of nowhere, a car runs a red light, hits your friend, and as a result his legs have to be amputated. (cont).

2) You are, obviously, distraught and upset over what has happened to your friend, and you want to help him. So you decide to go to court and sue the driver for your friend losing his legs. The court will immediately throw out your lawsuit against the driver. Why? (cont)

3) Because you do not have standing to bring the case--that is, you weren't the one injured. You can't bring a lawsuit to redress injuries of a third party. The third party (in this case your friend) has to bring the lawsuit. (cont)

4) That's why all 9 justices refused to hear the Texas case. They concluded that Texas does not have standing to seek redress for any injuries the voters of the other states may have suffered, because such injuries did not happen to Texas itself. (cont)

5) I, personally, disagree with SCOTUS's standing conclusion, as I think a good argument could be made that Texas did have standing (the reasons for which would take too long to explain). But that isn't my point (cont).

6) Rather, my point is that SCOTUS's conclusion that Texas lacked standing here is perfectly reasonable. Certainly it is something people can legitimately disagree over, but that happens in the law all the time.

7) And this concept of "standing" is not a "technicality" (and in fact in the law there is no such thing as a "technicality.") Standing is in fact one of the basic, fundamental parts of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition we've inherited. It goes back centuries. (cont)

8) It doesn't only matter WHAT your position is in a lawsuit. Just as important is HOW you present your position, and the legal theory underlying it. If you don't have standing, it doesn't matter what your other arguments may be--they don't mean anything.

9) Can this lead to frustrating results sometimes? Absolutely. But that's life, and it does one no good to engage in pointless, emotionally-laden attacks totally detached from what actually happened.