Each one of them has an ego and would back their legal intellect and skill to arrive at the correct solution to this problem. It is most definitely a problem.
The lower court in pensylvannia upheld the argument texas is making. The higher court then overruled based on the doctrine of laches (delay), not on the basis that they didn't act against the constitution, and two judges even dissented on that. Their logic was the case should still proceed if for no reason than to rule on whether the constitution was broken, but we should not grant the injunction because these voters have already relied upon the unconstitutional law to vote. It would be utterly wrong to bin their votes now, when they did nothing wrong themselves. That is what they found, and it's totally fair. Yet the fake news are blathering on about no ethidence and fraud and trump trying to be a tyrant. They are lying or they don't know what they're talking about.
The difference now is texas et al are bringing the claim, not a republican senator on his jack jones. This is a problem. What the lower courts found about not disenfranchising the voters despite the law being broken is no longer so easy to argue. Because there are millions of voters in the other states who you now have to fuck, rather than just one senator. I don't know how I'd balance this problem. Do you? Does the fake news? What I do know is the paedophiles in the supreme court will be gagging to have a go at it and put their names down in history.
The way out is to decline jurisdiction. Say one state can't sue another state over this. If texas has a problem then it needs to sue pensylvannia in pensylvannia's own court. Maybe that's the legal fact of the matter. But to me it would seem fucked and will lead to instant civil war. So from that side of things there is good reason to not summarily dismiss the claim.
