Just for confirmation, I was talking with a very reputable lawyer this morning. He said I am slightly off on my definition of standing, but that it's a really nebulous concept, so even some lawyers have difficulty with it. I have the gist correct, though. Trump couldn't show how he would have won this election if not for fraud, so courts weren't going to hear the case. ADDITIONALLY, there is a precedent where courts don't like to get involved in political matters without some kind of institutional support. AND, finally, there is a question as to whether it's the politician or the citizens that were harmed by the contested laws. This would explain why private citizens have had more success in the courts than Trump. Regardless, he said my assertion that a case dismissed on standing is not PROOF that there was no fraud. One can't logically use the courts as defense of their position because they didn't hear the case.

For the record, the guy thinks Trump legal team was pathetic (as do I), and he doesn't think there was widespread fraud. I realize this could appear like an appeal to authority logical fallacy, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy in the argument about the courts.

---