Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
And the suit was kicked for lack of standing. I liked how Alito and Thomas' dissent from that said that they thought the state should be heard but they weren't going to grant any injunctive relief so Paxton would have been free to argue the case sometime late next year, "No, no, making a statement about lack of standing is getting too involved in this stupidity. Grant the motion and then just wait for them to withdraw it. If someone still wants to argue for some reason, we'll kick it for there being no continuing justiciable conflict or controversy."
I'm not sure if lack of standing is the desired ground for rejection. After all states have a vested interest in electoral process in other states. It might have made more sense to reject on the basis of the timing of the suit; the decision to change rules on postal voting was taken months ago.