That really doesn't clarify beyond 'i disagree with what the court said'
Apply the logic in your comment, if we removed standing then a person in California would be able to sue a gun maker because of a shooting in Tennessee, etc that had no direct impact on the person in CA. If the court applied your logic to standing then anyone, anywhere, could sue to overturn any election, anywhere, because of some implied trickle down impact on them.
Just because something (like a national election) can have an impact on you as a person, the underlying issue (say the Georgia recount) doesn't impact you if you weren't a Georgia voter. The legal question was how the process affected the votes cast in that state. The subsequent impact, while broader, wasn't the primary concern for the court (and, as it turned out, was only a piece of the overall puzzle and by itself wouldn't have changed anything, IIRC).
But in this case it's all moot as it applies to AOC since the picture with the wrong hand wasn't the actual swearing in anyway
Last edited:
