The Supreme Court’s rejection of the motion by Texas and 18 other states to file a complaint against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin is being met with a cataract of derision for the losing side — or, as the Times calls those who sought a hearing, “the Republicans who embraced nihilism.” A Washington Post column is shaming by name the Republican officials who supported Texas. The Boston Globe says President Trump’s attorneys “must” face “disciplinary action.”

What in the world, though, are all these snoots going to do about the fact that two justices — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — dissented? Is the Boston Globe going to yank their law licenses, or what? None of other justices issued any opinion in the case, other than an unsigned order saying Texas was denied for lack of standing and for having “not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

Justice Alito, though, issued a brief statement. It was focused on the Constitution’s grant to the Supreme Court of “original jurisdiction” in cases in which a state is a party. “In my view,” Justice Alito’s statement said, “we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.” Justice Alito said he would “therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”

Justice Alito was joined by Justice Thomas. We wouldn’t suggest that the editorial we issued Thursday had the slightest effect on the two justices, but these columns did take what turned out to be their view. We’ve rarely enjoyed more being among the dissenters. Not only, in our estimate, did the original jurisdiction clause impel the court to hear Texas’ case. But doing so would — win, lose, or draw — have had a healing effect on our nation’s political eczema.

It may be, depending on how Mr. Biden conducts his presidency, that our country will heal itself anyhow. Or it may be that the failure of the Supreme Court to adjudicate the substance of Texas’ claims will exacerbate the frustrations of the losing side and cause them to burgeon in a new political season. And fuel Mr. Trump’s dream of energizing in four years the 72 million Americans who voted for him this year. Unlikely, but so was his victory in 2016.

Maybe the forensic historians who are sure to make a meal of this election will turn up a story. Just as the votes were being certified for the Electoral College, the country learned that since 2018 the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been looking into Hunter Biden’s affairs. Did President Trump’s Justice Department lack the nihilism to do to Mr. Biden what Mr. Obama’s Justice Department — via James Comey — did to Secretary Clinton?

Our point is simply that, given the Alito-Thomas statement, it’s going to be difficult for the Democrats to suggest it was completely preposterous to argue that the Nine should have heard the plea by Texas. That doesn’t diminish the victory of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, either. After all, the majority of the court that they persuaded seems to have included all three of the justices put on the high bench by Mr. Trump. That, too, will be something to remember.