I do understand your argument. I just disagree with it.
I believe a court under those circumstances would explain to the parties that the Constitution commits to Electors the function of choosing a President and that their argument should be directed to the Electors and to the voters who elect the Electors. I think that it would be a very simple case. Just read the Constitution to find out who chooses presidents.
I recognize that there are people who believe that there exists some fundamental problem with any system that entrusts to someone other than a judge a final determination of an important issue. But, I think most judges would have no difficulty with that notion.
Obviously, you and I cannot resolve this question. Maybe someday soon someone will somehow force a judge to decide whether he thinks he has the powers you are claiming for him. I predict that he or she will look for a way to avoid even answering the question and if he or she is somehow forced to answer the question, I am almost certain that he or she will find a way to decline to disqualify any candidate for president.
> I believe a court under those circumstances would explain to the parties that the Constitution commits to Electors the function of choosing a President and that their argument should be directed to the Electors and to the voters who elect the Electors.
Electors are part of the electoral process, they are not in any way part of the judicial process. The judicial process applies at all times, before as well as after, election.
> the powers you are claiming for him
Those powers are his by the Constitution.