It shouldn't have to be explained to the SCOTUS!
Judicially Cognizable Interest:
It is within the jurisdiction of a court because the vote for POTUS is a collective vote for Federal office.
A Tort by one state is an infringement on all of our civil right to vote. Standing!
Don't let any of these legal clowns fool you, this is basic elementary stuff. Perceptible; clearly identifiable is playing the game of choice. Any fool can say I don't see it on any topic, doesn't negate well known truths. BS!
Are you telling me that the top legal minds in America do not understand Tort Law and the word infringement? They do not know that all participants in a vote of stakeholders have to have equal due process?
Lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution
Alito: Explain which section your referring to 1 2 3 & the failed criteria, it's your job!
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases including Controversies between two or more States.
It is unfathomable to think that no one in legal has questioned this nebulous answer. It's like saying your car failed inspection with no reason.
It's the job of a judge to explain the law, it's even on US immigration test.
Stop idolizing and start questioning.