In Reply to: Have to say, I'm not sure I'm following the head games being posted by blindness on August 28, 2026 at 08:13:47
SCOTUS earlier ruled that the states didn't have standing because the admin and USPS hadn't done anything yet there was no harm to object to.
So she dismissed her injunction and openly encouraged people to sue again once the admin and USPS took action. as soon as she did, Trump and the USPS moved to finalize his EO, they in effect made it law. So that now means the states have standing under the SCOTUS ruling.
So they're all now suing, Marc Elias, Norm Eisen, the league of women voters etc dozens of lawsuits were filed on behalf of states alleging they would be irreparably harmed by this due to its impact on the election
And then judge Talwani put an injunction in saying exactly that, even the Trump Admin and the USPS has declined to say they could implement this and NOT disenfranchise thousands if not millions of voters.
So on Sep 3 they have a hearing where she wants the admin and USPS to provide proof of voter fraud and the USPS to provide proof they can implement this, in time for the election without harming voters. She said that hearing will go towards determining if the injunction will be extended, made permanent or removed.
I agree nobody should assume SCOTUS will do the right thing here