Please stop posting that verifiably false crap.
The text of the Supreme Court's refusal to take the case didn't even fill one page.
...................
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I 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.
Re: 63 - thanks for posting this.
This really comes down to AJs Alito and Thomas believing that the court was obligated to allow the bill of complaint to be filed because per Article III, the Court -shall- have jurisdiction in cases between two or more states, and failing to provide a venue for States to settle disputes is inequitable - see https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf
I would expect that from those Justices - a textualist approach in such a matter.
But people just simply gloss over the part where Alito and Thomas would not grant any other relief other than allowing Texas to file a bill of complaint. It was simply not the business of Texas to cry foul and ask the Court to withhold the certified count from other states.
Just a clown car of a legal strategy and proof that foot stomping is not a replacement for a coherent legal strategy and team PRIOR to an election.