I think people who are opposing this case are looking at it from purely procedural point of view and this is not how Supreme Court does things.
Others who are supporting the case are looking at it from national importance point of view.
Read this article below from a professor teaching constitutional law:
Also, check this video of a constitutional law expert explaining the complaint filed in the Brunson case in detail:
As per allegations in the complaint (which is being explained in this above video), there are 31 states that have violated election laws. I don't think there is any other Court which can decide this issue other than SCOTUS?
The people opposing this case may be right that based on past history, SCOTUS will not get involved in this case. But IMO, if they want to get involved, they have full authority and jurisdiction to take action in this case!
Let's see what happens!
[T]he problem we currently encounter with Professors who Attempt to teach Constitutional Law is that most of them have never gone through the Constitution with a fine toothed comb, aka a Dictionary made for those times...
I have and I enjoy destroying their illusions, as they mostly work off of other peoples writings and opinions, whereas I'm working purely off of the actual meanings of the words written IN the constitution, and am not using a ?NEW Dictionary, but the OLDEST I can find, such as a Bouviers 1856, specifically designed for that one thing, the U.S. Constitution....
Others try, they use Websters, or Blacks, and some others that tried but still messed up the actual Definitions of many words because the did not have a good grasp of the actual meanings of the words....
But Bouviers did, and he worked it with teams of people on each word, to distill the actual meanings of each word....
This is probably very well what Brunson is running into with SCOTUS....