Is 220155 the docket number? Or does it not get a docket number until the SC agrees to hear the case? I can’t figure out how to do a search for documents related to the case by just going to supreme court.gov.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

I am highly doubtful that they will get 5 Supreme Court justices to agree. 

Did they intend to sway the election or was that a byproduct?  Could they have known what that outcome would be?

The PA governor at least was trying to score points with those (mostly Democrats) cowering in their basements. I don't know what the complaints about the other states were.

I suppose the question comes down to malice or incompetence and I don't believe it's possible to prove malice.

In any case, I'm out, there's nothing to be gained talking about more.  Prediction, the SC will not take the Texas case or if they do, they will not rule for Texas, but use it as a warning shot for states to follow laws.  The Court is not going to invalidate a state's election.

 The SC is not being asked to "invalidate" an election.   The SC is being asked to rule on the constitutionality of how 4 states violated the US Constitution and the effects it has had on our election process.    A possible decision (and the one I believe will happen) is the SC will reinforce the power of the constitution to the state legislatures for them to decide on how to proceed without interference of the executive and judicial.

 That could result is a) Declaring a new election, b) trying to salvage the existing election results by only counting votes cast in accordance with applicable state laws, c) invalidating the state election and the legislature choose the electors, or d) invalidating the election and sending no electors.

 Personally I see (d) as the answer, and letting the constitution take over and send the election to the house of representatives.

 As for intent on swaying an election, it is incredulous to believe that in 6+ states that individuals all decided on their own to quickly intercede and rewrite election laws that would open the state up to massive fraud.  The body of evidence now indicates a heavily concerted effort to manipulate votes across state lines.  Also the statistical and electronic forensics also indicate that this was well planned out.

 This was orchestrated under the guise of covid and "never let a crisis go to waste".   

Even if fraud did not occur, this invalidates the election result.

 Correct.   This is at the heart of all of this.  It's no longer "who won", it's about election integrity.   Without election integrity we lose a major component of our constitution.   The founding fathers did not intend on giving any state more control over other states, which this effectively does.

 

And that’s just 4 states?

There are also tons of practiced competent shooters that don’t hunt, well trained in civilian self defense to add to those numbers.

So America has millions of armed defenders, not even counting our military.

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto — 'You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.'

https://www.wnd.com/2020/12/battle-lines-drawn-left-destroying-nation/

Here's a recent news item that may appear isolated, but which provides a very clear object lesson in the character of those on the left. In a sense, it's also queerly germane to the holiday season – assuming we're still allowed to use the word "queerly" in this context.

Based on news reports and a video that began circulating on social media this week, apparently a masked, socially-distanced, politically-correct mall Santa recently brought a little boy to tears when he refused the child's request for a Nerf® gun for Christmas after being asked for his wish list.

Obviously, Santa's response was in keeping with the individual's personal disdain for firearms, and the liberal convention of presuming one's view is the only righteous one. Leave it to a liberal to impose his views and preferences upon a child who can't understand the dynamic at hand. I definitely empathize with the child, and I hope the incident doesn't ruin his Christmas – a holiday the guy in the Santa suit probably cherishes about as much as he does the Second Amendment.

Before we delve into this analysis, let us establish that it really isn't a mall Santa's job to vet the wish lists of the children with whom they chat. Even if the kid asked for a 55-gallon drum of hydrochloric acid with which he might dissolve his siblings, it's Santa's job to pass on said request to the attending parent – not to judge or engage in activism.

Many will remember the "no war toys" campaigns that began on the left during the 1970s. Here, lobbyists and activists advanced an effort to remove "war toys" (read toy firearms) from every home, game, toy store, commercial and children's television program in America. Violent cartoons – even such fare as "Tom & Jerry" and "Looney Tunes" – came under attack by liberals as potentially turning little boys into spree killers. The nascent conventional wisdom (read aggressively promoted liberal orthodoxy) held that parents who continued to allow their children to play with toy firearms were knuckle-dragging troglodytes.

Bear in mind that all of this came about despite the admonitions from many prominent psychologists that little boys are naturally aggressive and really need to get those impulses out during childhood, or there was a real danger they actually would wind up as spree killers. This endeavor was also part of leftist efforts toward emasculating males and promoting gender confusion, the early sexualization of children, casual sex, premarital sex, unfettered abortion and other challenges to traditional morality that began during the same period.

In response, cartoons that represented various forms of conflict became "dumbed-down," bland and barely worth watching. Even the GI Joe® cartoons of that era depicted every single enemy pilot parachuting to safety after the dogfight. While most of the traditional "war toys" (cap guns and such) continued to be sold, toy manufacturers switched gears; instead of promoting overtly militaristic toys, they began to market and sell – guess what? – a whole lot of Nerf® guns.

If I haven't made my sentiments abundantly clear in recent weeks, let me proffer this in unambiguous terms: Liberals are slime. In order to avoid being accused of engaging in empty, vicious invective, allow me to clarify precisely what I mean by "slime." Those who are bereft of honor, ethics, scruples or any sense of moral obligation qualify as such – and it has been made painfully evident in recent years that this is the character of the liberal.

Is it "a bit much" to relegate all liberals to slimehood? No, I don't think it is. As I recently demonstrated in this space, liberalism (or progressivism) is simply the wedge radical leftists insidiously engaged in order to incrementally usher in a socialist state. Well, you can kill someone with a bullet to the head, or by slow poison; they'll still be just as dead. Thus, there is no reason that liberal policies should have been tolerated in the name of fair play or erroneous interpretations of constitutional law over the last 60 years. None.

As we know, the truly rabid left exist in extremely small numbers; it is only their immoderate vociferousness and the fact that many of these people occupy places of power that give the impression of a wider scope of influence. It is probable that the majority of self-identifying liberals have simply been thoroughly deluded. Regardless, I would say that these people are likely to be faced with a significant decision in the very near future. With factions in our nation so perilously close to being enemy combatants, the committed liberal should be mindful that enemy combatants typically don't engage in intellectual analysis as to whether or not their enemy may be following an evil doctrine or regime out of ignorance or delusion.

In other words, if you commit treason, those who ultimately wind up judging you won't be concerned with the fact that you did so out of ignorance or delusion, only with the fact that you committed treason.

For the committed conservative, libertarian, or even the unbiased, non-ideological swing voter, the lines that have been drawn should be unmistakable. In the last year alone, the abysmal character of those on the left and the danger they represent have been made clear, whether we're talking about the Squad's cries for free everything, orchestrated mayhem in our cities, Democratic elites skirting COVID-19 restrictions for personal economic benefit or calls for the systematic persecution of our president's supporters.

All those who self-identify as being left-of-center are enemies of this nation, and there is no middle ground.

We just put up Christmas fake candles in our windows and I couldn’t find the normal “made in China” anywhere on them. No “made in USA” either. Nothing. I thought origin was legally required?

Nothing on the package?

What fails? The Texas suit?

Answering the question of where are the blue states in this.

They hope the Texas lawsuit fails.