Of course. About that, we agree.
No, I don't agree in the least that the courts have authority to overturn a Presidential election, once those results are certified by Congress.
I disagree. If it is determined in a court of law that the certification was based on fraud, then the imposter president isn't president, and the Impeachment and Removal clause shouldn't apply.
But it doesn't say in the Constitution that a sitting President can be removed by a court if fraud is uncovered. If fraud is uncovered, then that is a "High Crime and Misdemeanor," and the President can only be removed by being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
Once removed from office, or after his term ends, he can then be tried in a court of law for election fraud, and punished if found guilty.
But nowhere, NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that after the steps outlined in the Constitution are followed, that subsequent evidence of election fraud will nullify the process.
Just like the Liberal Left would like to believe that the "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that they can still ban guns, I would like to believe that proof of vote fraud would nullify a Presidential Election.
But the Left is wrong, and I would be wrong.
The state legislatures have sole power. They select the electors (even though they spinelessly handed it to the voters almost from the beginning!). If the state legislatures (and the state voters!) are fine with fraud then so are the courts.