What the Supreme Court did in refusing to hear the case was predictable. The constitutional issue was fairly clear, and in the 4-4 refusal to hear that issue in the pre-election case out of PA signaled what the outcome probably would be had the Court taken it up. Yet so far only

... two cases post-election have presented the constitutional issue they punted on in the PA case: The Texas case, asserting original jurisdiction, and the Kelly case, which had been rejected by lower courts for lack of standing. On its face the Texas case presented a thorny

... standing issue, as well, that would have required the Court to expand traditional Article III standing principles if the Court were to take the case. Traditional standing means the plaintiff must show a particularized harm, not merely a general harm to everyone (all voters,

... all states, all electors, etc.). Further, nearly all other cases in the lower courts in this election have similarly been dismissed for lack of standing. Why? They were brought by individual voters. The Eighth Circuit allows standing in such cases, but the majority of courts

... do not. On the other hand a losing candidate seeking to overturn the election results always has standing. Yet Trump, as the losing candidate, never sought to intervene in these cases before they were dismissed, nor did he file his own lawsuits in all the swing states raising

... the constitutional issues raised in the Texas case. His campaign filed a case in PA, but not Trump. He finally sought to intervene in the Texas case last week, but that didn’t cure the jurisdictional issue, because the Court has no original jurisdiction over suits by

... individuals. Today, @RudyGiuliani seems to have finally gotten the message, and he’s announced Trump will be filing a case like the Texas case in federal district court. My question to @RudyGiuliani and the rest of the Trump legal team is: Why did you wait so long?