Random (okay, topical news-related, but random to this discussion) hivemind question:
Is there a clear, succinct answer to the online peeps who insist that it doesn't matter that the soon-to-be-former administration and its supporters are 59-1 in the courts because almost everything was dismissed due to lack of standing, which to the STBFA's supporters is just a cowardly dodge that means none of the merits have ever been addressed?
That belief of theirs that the standing argument is a cheap dodge that invalidates everything feels like bullshit (and I know that every single claim of fraud that could be either proven or disproven has been investigated and disproven, albeit never in court--but why waste everyone's time on it all over again in court?), but I am a million miles from a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar and I can't articulate why it's bullshit. Is there some brief, clear "Here's why" out there?