Subject: Re: What would be more chaos?
So why didn't the Trump attorneys find a plantiff who did have standing?

Come to think of it, standing is a pretty basic concept for a competent attorney. Why would the attorney even bring the case if there were questions about the plantiff's standing? Or at least be prepared to address the question of standing that the defense would surely raise?

They didn't need to. Again, Trump had standing in every case.

The cases that were dismissed based on standing were not cases where Trump was involved. They were brought by third parties. A lot of them were brought by outside folks (like Sidney Powell) that wanted to make allegations that the Trump lawyers wouldn't bring. Because Trump's election lawyers were mostly competent elections counsel, and knew there wasn't any evidence to support the allegations. And didn't want to get sanctioned by the courts for doing that (as Powell eventually was) or brought up on bar disciplinary complaints.

The remaining cases were just procedural ploys. They were brought by the State of Texas on behalf of the State, against four of the swing states, re-litigating arguments that the Trump campaign had made (and lost) in lower courts. Why bother doing that? Because unlike litigation brought by Trump (an individual), cases that involve a State suing another State automatically go straight to the Supreme Court. The Court's jurisdiction isn't discretionary, but mandatory. Since SCOTUS had refused to hear any of the Trump complaints being brought up through the other cases, the Texas AG tried a little procedural ploy to get a case in front of them that they didn't have the discretion not to hear.