So as not to be accused of burying the lead, the rest of my title quote is "... Mighty Casey has struck out". The baseball analogy, drawn from a poem by Ernest Thayer in 1888, will do more to date me and limit my audience than I would like.
The Supreme Court has rejected the Texas case against PA, GA, MI and WI. There are still court cases out there on the Presidential Election but this case, driven by Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, was, in my opinion, the answer to a mother's prayer. But it is now gone.
The Texas case was based upon the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, drawn from Article III of the Constitution, for actions between states. This means that without winding its way up the ladder from District Court to Circuit Court to the Supreme Court as an appellate case, a case that can use the doctrine of Original Jurisdiction comes directly to the Supreme Court as the trial court. This is compared to more than 8,000 cases that seek to apply for Certiori each year - of which only about 1 % are granted "Cert" and are heard by the Court.
Further, the demands on the Supreme Court were very small in terms of remedy sought, They did not have to decide who was to be President as in Bush v Gore in 2000. They only had to decide that the states had violated the Constitution by members of the executive branch in the State government had unilaterally made changes in the election codes of the four Defendant states. The Federal Constitution specifies that the legislatures of the states shall set the time, place and manner of the methods of choosing Representatives and Senators and the choosing of the President by choosing a number of Electors to the Electoral College. If the election had failed because of the changes to the system made by the executive departments, the legislative bodies in the states could take back their powers and choose a new set of electors. Since the legislatures of the four states were controlled by Republicans, there was a good chance they would elect a slate of electors favorable to Trump. And if the legislatures could not decide on a slate of electors, they would not send a set of electors to vote in the Electoral College. If neither candidate reached 270 votes - then the election for President would be held in the House of Representatives. A situation that has happened twice in our history (1800 and 1824). Like the odds in the legislatures, a failed election that would end in the House of Representatives would probably tilt for the President. Although the House favors the Democrats, the procedure for a failed election gives each state delegation 1 vote. And the delegations currently are Republican 27 to 21 with two tied. Again, advantage Trump.
But without a clean way to get there, we may be running out of gas and time. The Court gave a brief decision late today. Quoted below for those of you who like that sort of thing:
"The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue"
So I am still here, the President is still here and he has my support as long as he needs it. There are still cases in play, and we shall see. Just to show that I am a good sport, I will offer the complete text of the Thayer poem, Casey at the Bat, in the first comment box.