I have been warning that those in Washington DO NOT like outsiders.
Only 106 republicans out of 196 joined Texas demonstrating that behind the curtain, nearly 50% of republican politicians prefer Trump to leave because he is not one of them.
The Supreme Court avoided ruling claiming Texas had no standing which is completely false.
Not giving a decision, either way, will propel civil unrest as each side claims they are right. Already people in Texas are talking about secession might be the answer for pro-Trump states. This time, we are approaching the break up of the United States and it may indeed be the only solution.
No side has the right to oppress the other and the Supreme Court will  NOT defend the people or the Constitution. The rule of law was the foundation of civilization, and refusing to comply with that duty condemns the nation to oblivion.
The Supreme Court has NO DISCRETION whatsoever to deny the petition and I do not say that as being supportive of the action. The only way to settle this dispute is to rule then both sides would have no choice but to settle down.
This way, the election will always be in dispute. Biden got more votes in each of these swing states than Hillary or Obama which was NOT  the case in any other state. This is indicative of fraud and it should have been addressed yes or no.
This election was STOLEN not by Biden, but by an international agenda that has taken over the entire West and they needed Trump removed.
Just look at the Agenda 2030 coming from Klaus Schwab and you will see the real future we face. This is the man who is destroying the future of civilization, will fail in his Marxist dreams, and will leave the West in shambles as the financial capital migrates to China. UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACEThe Judiciary Act of 1925 held that the Supreme Court would have the discretion to select what it wants to hear in direct violation of the Constitution, which has NEVER been addressed.
The Constitution ONLY established the Supreme Court as part of a tripartite government and the separation of powers as laid out as essential to constrain tyranny by Montesquieu, who was also the inspiration for the Second Amendment which was to keep citizens armed rather than maintain standing armies to prevent war.
As such, the lower courts were created ONLY by statute under Congress and could just as easily be shut down. The only court required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court and all Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are required to take two oaths before they may execute the duties of their appointed office – (1) the Constitutional Oath to defend it and (2) the Judicial Oath.
Therefore, anyone can see on its face that the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional for it violates their oath to defend the Constitution when they have the discretion to not hear cases.
Previously, the Supreme Court ruled and ignored this time when it defined “discretion” by saying “the term ‘discretion’ denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule.” Langnes v Green, 282 US 531, 541 (1931). This means that those in power do not have to obey any law, even the Constitution. The Supreme Court also said, “it is obvious that discretion does not exist where there is no power to act except in one way.” Jones v SEC, 298 US 1, 18 (1936).
When judges and politicians claim discretion, they claim to be ABOVE the law of men.
Now, turning to the Texas lawsuit, I agree with Justices Alito and Thomas that the court had “no discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”
Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers.
This case squarely fell within the original jurisdiction since it was a case “between two or more states” and therefore, this denial was in itself unconstitutional relying on the discretion granted illegally by the Judiciary Act of 1925. Obviously, the majority of the court simply did not want to get into this election dispute.
Like Dread Scott, which tried to avoid the issue of slavery by ruling that blacks had no rights under the Constitution to avoid ruling which led to the Civil War, the Supreme Court has once again condemned the country to Civil War for is the Democrats try to implement the Agenda 2030, they will unleash violence no different than the Russian revolution. 
Klaus Schwab knows this will lead to revolution and has flipped to claiming if his agenda is NOT adopted there will be a revolution from the BLM movement he helped to inspire.
The Merits of the Texas Suithttps://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Texas-SCt-suit.pdf
The Texas lawsuit turned on the Electoral College Clause.
“Constitutional BackgroundThe Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its Presidential Electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2
As set forth in the Complaint, executive and judicial officials made significant changes to the legislatively defined election laws in the Defendant States. … Taken together, these non-legislative changes did away with statutory ballot-security measures for absentee and mail-in ballots such as signature verification, witness requirements, and statutorily authorized secure ballot drop-off locations”

There is no doubt that they had an argument and that it fell squarely within the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Alito and Thomas recognized that.
The fact that the other 7 justices denied cert merely shows they did not want to rule on this matter which is an exercise of discretion that has now doomed the USA to continuing violence.
In doing so, they have violated the civil right of the entire nation and condemned the world to the ruthless tyranny coming out of the World Economic Forum. Based upon information and belief, this entire “Build Back Better” movement has been designed by the marketing firm Edelman which already appears to be pushing this new world order and is also in a partnership with the World Economic Forum.

In the Supreme Court decision Bush v Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000), it did raise the equal protection problem with different election procedures nationally. The court held Per Curiam:

  • Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies.

There were indications that the Court recognized the need for nationwide electoral reform under Due Process and the Equal Protection Clause. How states do their own elections do not impact other states. However, election of anyone federally impacts the rights of everyone. Looking at the lower courts, at least one federal court has suggested that the courts could order a new election. In 1976, an Eastern District Court in New York heard a case, Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of NY, 435 F. Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976), where it was alleged that voter fraud in several urban locations took place not unlike what we see right now. In that decision, the court maintained that federal courts had a role to play in ensuring free and fair presidential elections. It held:

  • “It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means.”

Interestingly, the court didn’t find sufficient evidence that voter fraud had altered the outcome, or even occurred at all.
Still, experts disagree about whether courts can order presidential elections to be held again.
If there is a violation of rules that would change the election outcome, then the courts would be compelled to act and federally this is why Texas is suing Pennsylvania. Now 17 other states are joining Texas v Pennsylvania. What Pennsylvania and Georgia for that matter do to try to prevent recounts impacts the Equal Protection of the Law and Due Process rights of everyone else in the entire country.
ELECTION VIOLATED OUR CIVIL RIGHTSWithin the Legal Code Title 18, Section 241, it has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. It has long been held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. It has been applied to stuffing a ballot box with forged ballots, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915) as well as preventing the official count of ballots in primary elections, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), which may come in handy in this election. This means private suites can be filed claiming that interfering with the ballots is a civil rights violation to all in the country.
Destroying voter registration applications is also applicable (United States v. Haynes, Nos. 91-5979, 91-6076, 1992 WL 296782, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 1992)), as well as destroying ballots (United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070, 1073–75 (8th Cir. 1988)).
Anyone who exploits the infirmities of elderly or handicapped people by casting absentee ballots in their names is also a violation of civil rights, United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1972), just as anyone who illegally register voters and cast absentee ballots in their names, United States v. Weston, 417 F.2d 181, 182–85 (4th Cir. 1969).
Anyone who threatens injury, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote is also a serious actionable issue under this statute, Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). This even extends to someone who impersonates qualified voters, Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879, 879 (5th Cir. 1952).

By Rick