The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
So the Federal court system is designed to have jurisdiction over cases involving:
1. Constitutional matters (not applicable in the PA case)
2. Federal laws (not applicable in the PA case)
3. Treaties (not applicable)
4. Ambassadors and diplomats (not applicable)
5. Admiralty and maritime law (not applicable)
6. Controversies between states (not applicable)
7. Controversies between a state and the citizens of another state (not applicable)
8. Controversies between citizens of different states (not applicable)
9. Controversies between a state or its citizens and a foreign nation (not applicable)
I will simply refer you to Constitutional expert, Mark Levin, who has spoke and written about this matter extensively. Notice he references Article II, section 1 clause 2.
Here is a short excerpt:
“The United States Supreme Court had an opportunity before the election, and in this general election cycle, to make clear to the states that they must comply with the plain language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Indeed, when a federal district judge in Michigan altered that state’s election laws, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court overturned his order. Justice Gorsuch pointed out that the state legislature writes election laws. However, when a case was brought to the Court involving the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interference in state election laws, the U.S. Supreme Court was paralyzed. Chief Justice Roberts attempted to distinguish between federal and state courts, which is irrelevant; in another instance, Justice Alito ordered the Pennsylvania secretary of state, not once but twice, to segregate certain mail-in ballots, but nothing came of it. A court divided against itself cannot stand, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln. Its failure to enforce the Constitution (and by that I don’t mean make law or intervene in legitimate state election decisions) has contributed mightily to our current plight.”