> because for some reason the liberal justices saw fit to claim Texas has "no standing" to object to another state's unconstitutionality in a presidential election (which is preposterous), All of Trump's SCOTUS nominees are "liberal justices" are they? LOL, what a pathetic argument! Of course even the 2 Bush justices who did vote to allow the case to proceed weren't going to grant the requested relief: > But that was as far as those two justices were willing to go. “I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint **but would not grant other relief**,” Justice Alito wrote, “and I express no view on any other issue.” > You're cherry picking Texas' argument Do you want to be humiliated some more? Texas' filing also stated *"state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity **so that fraud becomes undetectable**"* If they have evidence of fraud than the fraud isn't undetectable, because they would have *detected it*. Of course if you have any quotes from the filing that would have given them some way to present evidence of fraud then feel free to quote it. No, you've got nothing? How embarrassing!