"Butters! You are GGGGRRRRRROOOOOUUUUNNNNNDED!!"
My suspicion, since actual lawyers are involved, is that the 6th circuit only ruled on the propriety of the original federal judge overruling state law in order to start the recount early.
Now that the MI appeals court has ruled, albeit putting their result in abeyance contingent on an appeal to the MI Supreme Court, I would expect that the subsequent MI Supreme Court ruling on the admissibility of a recount would then be appealed to the 6th Circuit for its ruling. Any ruling by the 6th may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which if it deadlocks, could demur to the final ruling of the 6th Circuit.
So, the final ruling on whether a recount was warranted on Michigan state law might be decided in the 6th Circuit.
[That’s my guess, and I’m sticking to it! :]
Where do you find, in the Constitution, the notion that Federal courts have ANY jurisdiction over the appointment of electors by State Legislatures?
It goes to the SCOTUS only if a federal constitutional issue is involved.
Otherwise, a state supreme court is the final court of resort on matters of state law.
"Butters! You are GGGGRRRRRROOOOOUUUUNNNNNDED!!"
That is clearly a matter only of Michigan election law, and Michigan's sole authority to regulate its elections is recognized in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.
All that Goldschmidt was allowed to rule was that there could be a due process violation IF the Michigan courts ruled the recount could proceed but it could not be completed in time. That is why he directed the recount to begin early -- just in case.
However, he has no authority over Michigan election law whatsoever, unless someone can prove to him that MI law violates equal protection, due process, or some other part of the US Constitution. No one has made that argument.
His ruling was not on the merits of Stein/Clinton/Soro's petition, which, let me repeat again, he has no authority whatsoever to rule on.