Do you know for sure that TEXAS conducted the election in full compliance with the protocols established by the state legislature?
I'll bet they didn't -- and not necessarily through any deliberate malfeasance, either. All Pennsylvania would have to do to get this case tossed out of court is demonstrate that one ballots among the millions cast in Texas should not have been counted because it wasn't cast in full compliance with Texas law.
“””Here’s a problem with this case that nobody has even mentioned: Do you know for sure that TEXAS conducted the election in full compliance with the protocols established by the state legislature?”””
Fine. Let Pennsylvania countersue Texas. And before they go to Court to argue the suit and countersuit, the Judge orders each party the Rights of Discovery to depose witnesses and inspect relevant documents.
Nonsense! First, if PA had a case against TX, that would be a separate case, not something that would somehow negate the TX claim. Second, the TX claim is that PA’s violation (and those of the other 3 defendant states) of it’s own law had a sufficient enough effect to change the results of the single national election that we have under the Constitution. It is beyond absurd to claim that a single ballot violation of TX law had such an effect. You’re really reaching here.
I know for sure that Texas did not. For one, the governor issued an order allowing early voting to begin six days earlier than provided by the legislature. Well over 400,000 votes were cast before the statutory beginning of early voting in Harris County alone.
Harris County also operated several "drive through" early-voting sites that also violated the law provided by the legislature. Over 127,000 votes were cast that way, give or take a thousand or two because there was a discrepancy. I know that one through personal experience, because I spent part of Election Day watching a second download of those votes because they did the first one with no poll watchers or clerks present.
There is also a potential Equal Protection argument, because Harris County allowed drive-through early voting while no one else did.
So yes, if PA or the other defendants could defend the case on the basis that Texas also did not follow the manner directed by its legislature, PA would have no problem proving that defense.
Now, each of these issues was, in fact, litigated all the way to the Texas Supreme Court, and the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court ruled against the Republican Party and Republican candidate plaintiffs on the merits each time. But of course, the same could be said of the issues in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and the other states.
I will point out that Pennsylvania and the other states would not be able to assert a "clean hands" defense regardless, because that requires the party asserting the defense to prove that it "has been seriously harmed and the wrong complained of cannot be corrected without the application of the doctrine." Pennsylvania cannot prove such harm for the same reason Texas could not, which is why the Supreme Court properly denied the petition for lack of Article III standing.