So we actually read the findings: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

This thing is an absolute mess. The judge has essentially made the case AGAINST Pennsylvania by allowing that counties can ‘expand voting rights’ which is clearly unconstitutional. SCOTUS will rule it as such.

The other issue in his finding:

“One such fundamental right, at issue in this case, is the right to vote. Voting

is one of the foundational building blocks of our democratic society, and that the

Constitution firmly protects this right is “indelibly clear.” All citizens of the

United States have a constitutionally protected right to vote. And all citizens

have a constitutionally protected right to have their votes counted."

versus

the Supreme Court

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college."

What does this mean?

1) states must have uniform voting methods for all counties with single tier requirements (violated in all swing states)

2) the state legislature is under no directive to follow the suggestion of the voting citizen when appointing electors

3) if a state so wished it could select its electors democratically AFTER a certified win (in reality no one actually does)

Point:

If the election is not certified and the state legislatures themselves are convinced that the election by the citizens was tampered with it is completely within their legal authority to ignore or even nullify the election and appoint their own electors in order to prevent a democratic overthrow of their constitutional powers.

Point:

This also clarified that all citizens do NOT have the constitutional right to a vote for president. This is where the power of the legislature comes into play when appointing electors-

-actually cast their votes for president (the people do not).

——————————————————

FURTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING 1):

The three current SCOTUS judges - Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret worked as lawyers for the Republican Party. The court found in that case:

“The problem inheres in >the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application.< The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary."

Thomas (current SCOTUS) voted in favor. Alto likely to agree. The actual meat of the Trump cases is not dependent on fraud - it’s on a two tier system of casting ballots.

—————————————

Amended from first thread: some are claiming that the Republican legislatures wouldn’t dare. I disagree since we’ve now seen numerous pontification about destroying all republicans and their futures. This is the kind of saber rattling hubris that makes people act more out of a sense of self preservation rather than anything else.