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.
I disagreed with Alito and Thomas at the time -- not because I disagreed with their legal rationale for accepting the case, but because I would have expected a textualist to be very, very reluctant by nature to allow the Federal courts to do anything to get involved in a presidential election where the Constitution lays out very clear plenary powers of the states.
This whole idea of one state (Texas) to file a legal action against another state (Pennsylvania) over a presidential election where there wasn't even any legitimate formal opposition from Pennsylvania's state or Federal officials would set a very dangerous precedent for eliminating state oversight of their own elections.