I think he’s saying that the Constitution does not allow the judicial branch to interfere . . . oh, forget . . . that’s an outdated conservative belief, anyway.
This boggles the mind. The Constitution doesn’t allow the judicial branch to interfere? Judicial review of laws based on unconstitutionality is well established. Why not judicial review of a presidential election if the candidate might not have been constitutionally qualified? This does not add up.
I believe the new theory is “No controlling legal authority”, but that is only for Republicians.