Texas v Penn

 Here is the brief filed by the Attorney General of Texas: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/162953/20201207234611533_TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf  . It is 92 pages long.  The issue is:

Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily prevent Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from certifying their 2020 election results because changes to those states' election procedures in light of the COVID-19 pandemic violated the Constitution.

I'm going to read it and see if anything stands out.

====================

Ok, this is a very quick impression.  

1. How does Texas have standing to bring the case?  The brief states:  "The citizens of Plaintiff State have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college."  That seems weak to me.  How is Texas uniquely injured?  It seems that Trump would be the proper party to be the plaintiff, like in the 2000 Bush v Gore.  The Supreme Court might throw it out just because of this.

2. The facts in 3 of the 4 states seems pretty weak.  They basically complain that more mail-in ballots were for Biden than Trump.  

a. Pennsylvania: Democrats submitted mail-in ballots at more than two times the rate of Republicans. This number of constitutionally tainted ballots far exceeds the approximately 81,660 votes separating the candidates.

b. Georgia: If the rejection rate of mailed-in absentee ballots remained the same in 2020 as it was in 2016, there would be 83,517 less tabulated ballots in 2020. The statewide split of absentee ballots was 34.68% for Trump and 65.2% for Biden. Rejecting at the higher 2016 rate with the 2020 split between Trump and Biden would decrease Trump votes by 28,965 and Biden votes by 54,552, which would be a net gain for Trump of 25,587 votes. This would be more than needed to overcome the Biden advantage of 12,670 votes, and Trump would win by 12,917 votes.

c. Michigan: However, Wayne County made the policy decision to ignore Michigan’s statutory signature verification requirements for absentee ballots. Former Vice President Biden received approximately 587,074, or 68%, of the votes cast there compared to President Trump’s receiving approximate 264,149, or 30.59%, of the total vote.

d. Wisconsin: There are more allegations about Wisconsin, including the unauthorized use of drop boxes, claims about being "indefinitely confined" because of Covid, and the back dating of ballots after election day.

3. This doesn't even address the two main allegations, which are that the "drop and roll" (where vote counting halted and then Biden's total was increased dramatically between 2am and 6am on November 4) was indication of fraud and that the Dominion voting machines can be programmed to manipulate the vote.  

4.  The mention of 1 in a quadrillion comes across as being a sore loser.

The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of  that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000). 

The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 general election and President Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections. Again, the statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four States collectively is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.

This reads as: the odds of Biden doing better than Hillary Clinton in those 4 states is highly improbable and a casual observer would read this as stating that the Texas Attorney General thinks it is impossible for more people to vote for Biden than voted for Clinton.  So this comes across as an outrageous claim that backfires.

5. In conclusion, this comes across as a very weak case that is designed to fail.  And then people can point to the fact that it failed as proof that Biden won - "The Supreme Court threw out the case!".  I think there was obvious widespread election fraud.  But this document doesn't address the actual fraud and instead focuses on minutiae like the number of absentee ballots.  I think the Texas Attorney General is a RINO who is backstabbing Trump by bringing a very weak case that he knows is a loser.

But that is my initial impression.  It would be worth reading again and getting other people's opinions.