I'm not a lawfag by any means, but I think I understand game theory well enough at this point.

I don't believe that the plan was ever to have SCOTUS single handedly fix the election. It may have been the right thing to do, given the degree of fraud, but the precedent it would set would could very easily spiral out of control in the future. The Constitution is very clear, the state legislatures have sole jurisdiction over how elections are conducted in their respective states, so it would make sense that they would be the ones to uncover and act on the fraud.

It is important to note, the Texas case was dismissed based on standing, not on its merits. We may not have been thrilled at the time, but that dismissal in itself set a sort of precedent, namely that states, even multiple states, do not have the standing to interfere in the way in which elections are conducted in other states. Can you imagine if they had taken it and ruled for Texas? We would have states suing each other every time they had an election with whose results another state government was less than pleased. It may have even opened the way for the Feds to start doing the same. A true Pandora's box.

Another side effect of the dismissal is that no one can argue at this point that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are Trump lackeys, since they all voted to dismiss. Alot of us are pissed at them still, but looking back, it was the correct decision, constitutionally. The left will still try, but we have a simple response now to shut them up. They could have given Trump his 2nd term single handedly, and they chose not to.

So we have now Arizona. Let's say the audit is completed, fraud is proven in sufficient amounts to swing the state. The state legislature votes to declare fraud and revokes its electors from Biden. Under the precedent set by the dismissal of Texas v. PA, deep blue states like CA and NY cannot do anything to intervene, as they have no standing to interfere in another state's electoral processes. Even if they did try to sue, their case could be thrown out in the same way, and no one could claim that SCOTUS was biased, as they threw out the Texas case for the same reason.

I think the Swamp knows this too, as pretty much every move they are making at this point with regards to the audit is geared towards muddying the waters and preparing their talking points for when this shit inevitably hits the fan. Any legal avenue they may have had to stop this thing has been exhausted, and had SCOTUS taken the Texas case, opening the way for states to interfere in one another's elections, we might be in a very different situation.

Given the above, I do believe that the Texas case was pre-emptive, made with the intention of having it thrown out. By suing to overturn other states' elections, however fraudulent they may have been, and getting it dismissed, they actually ended up taking a massive number of moves off the board for the enemy, and gave cover for Republican legislatures in AZ, MI, GA, etc. to do their part, without CA+NY or DC interfering.

I'm not a lawfag by any means, but I think I understand game theory well enough at this point.

I don't believe that the plan was ever to have SCOTUS single handedly fix the election. It may have been the right thing to do, given the degree of fraud, but the precedent it would set would could very easily spiral out of control in the future. The Constitution is very clear, the state legislatures have sole jurisdiction over how elections are conducted in their respective states, so it would make sense that they would be the ones to uncover and act on the fraud.

It is important to note, the Texas case was dismissed based on standing, not on its merits. We may not have been thrilled at the time, but that dismissal in itself set a sort of precedent, namely that states, even multiple states, do not have the standing to interfere in the way in which elections are conducted in other states. Can you imagine if they had taken it and ruled for Texas? We would have states suing each other every time they had an election with whose results another state government was less than pleased. It may have even opened the way for the Feds to start doing the same. A true Pandora's box.

Another side effect of the dismissal is that no one can argue at this point that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are Trump lackeys, since they all voted to dismiss. Alot of us are pissed at them still, but looking back, it was the correct decision, constitutionally. The left will still try, but we have a simple response now to shut them up. They could have given Trump his 2nd term single handedly, and they chose not to.

So we have now Arizona. Let's say the audit is completed, fraud is proven in sufficient amounts to swing the state. The state legislature votes to declare fraud and revokes its electors from Biden. Under the precedent set by the dismissal of Texas v. PA, deep blue states like CA and NY cannot do anything to intervene, as they have no standing to interfere in another state's electoral processes. Even if they did try to sue, their case could be thrown out in the same way, and no one could claim that SCOTUS was biased, as they threw out the Texas case for the same reason.

I think the Swamp knows this too, as pretty much every move they are making at this point with regards to the audit is geared towards muddying the waters and preparing their talking points for when this shit inevitably hits the fan. Any legal avenue they may have had to stop this thing has been exhausted, and had SCOTUS taken the Texas case, opening the way for states to interfere in one another's elections we might be in a very different situation.

Given the above, I do believe that the Texas case was pre-emptive, made with the intention of having it thrown out. By suing to overturn other states' elections, however fraudulent they may have been, and getting it dismissed, they actually ended up taking a massive number of moves off the board for the enemy, and gave cover for Republican legislatures in AZ, MI, GA, etc. to do their part, without CA+NY or DC interfering.