should have because -- before even considering any of the merits (which also almost certainly would have been rejected), there must be a finding that the case argues a certain kind of state vs. state dispute that gives rise to SCOTUS original jurisdiction. Otherwise, you can't ever go directly to the Supreme Court -- it has to be some lower court dispute or other set of issues. Like anything, exact parameters are always a little fuzzy on the edges -- but this seemed WAY over the edge. Most such disputes are things like arguing over water/property/boundary rights where clearly two states are affected in some obviously definable way. Even arguing original jurisdiction seemed a huge stretch here. I believe the technical argument was about the Vice President being the tie-breaking vote in the Senate and how that gives rise to some unique state interests and potential state conflict.

Interesting that Thomas and Alito both seemed willing to at least grant standing based on original jurisdiction -- specifically making the point that they were saying nothing about the merits, but still allowing to proceed. That seems borderline ridiculous -- an example imo of a very "activist" mindset, especially based on the argument that had to be crafted here to even try about the VP and Senate. There are a ton of areas where I would never want the liberal Justices to grant standing based on far reaching argument out of, for example, CA going after something in Virginia where CA claimed injury. Those battles already exist pushing the boundary for activist opinions. I thought it was the "conservatives" who want them scaled back. Granting original jurisdiction under these facts would only open things up further.