The six states referenced in the Texas suit clearly violated constitutional proscriptions in the conduct of their elections.
Nope, sorry, wrong. Many of those claims were already litigated, and failed.
Or, the plaintiffs waited far too long to demand a remedy via litigation. E.g. Pennsylvania allowed no-excuse mail-in voting with a bipartisan vote in October 2019. A handful of Republicans only filed suit
after they lost, and millions of Pennsylvanians had voted in good faith. It is not constitutional to disenfranchise millions because you don't like the way they voted.
The evidence supporting illegality and fraud charges is not the best
lol... What evidence?
the sheer volume of it should be cause for further investigation
No, dude. That's not how this works. Bad claims don't get better because you make more of them.
while that isn't the task of the SC, they certainly could have directed the legislatures in those six states to address it.
Not based on the Texas case.
Yet again:
Texas does not have standing. The Constitution explicitly writes that individual states are responsible for selecting their own slates of electors. Pennsylvania could throw darts at a board if it wanted to. If Texas does not like how Pennsylvania chooses its electors, then that's Tough S*** for Texas.
Any challenges to the ways states run their elections have to start in the state courts, then work their way up to federal courts and the SCOTUS. And hey, guess what?
That already happened, and the Trump campaign lost those cases too.
The dismissals on procedural grounds by the various courts - mist notably the PA SC - were simply avoidance.
Good grief. No, not even close.
To start with, many of the cases didn't even try to offer so-called "evidence" of fraud, because the lawyers knew it was garbage. Instead, they tried to push cases on procedural grounds, and they failed.
To continue, in many of the cases, the judges did look at the so-called "evidence," and tore it to shreds. It's all baseless -- e.g. attorneys failing to provide the basis of their allegations; egregiously irrational "statistics;" affidavits by utterly clueless election observers who skipped training sessions; wild conspiracy theories about dead dictators, and so on.
From a layman's perspective, whrn I see six columns of heavy smoke rising in my vicinity, I generally think there may be some fires causing them, and I check that out.
Try again.
If you live in a fire zone, and you see a bunch of smoke, the LAST thing you should do is head towards the possible fire. That can get you killed.
What you
should do is listen to the authorities and experts, who will tell you if there is an actual forest fire headed towards you, and whether you need to evacuate.
If you do defy all reason and head towards the fire, and you find it's some guy burning leaves in his backyard, you are no longer justified in proclaiming that there really
is a massive forest fire, and tell everyone else to evacuate.
