I think it boils down to they were scared TX would present a good case they would have to agree with.

So the only way to not open that can of worms was to deny it on a technicality.

The issue is not states stepping on stages. The issue is the non legislative branches stepping on the legislative branch in the states in question.

Courts are not politically impartial even though they are supposed to be.

Also, had the relief TX wanted been granted, it would not necessarily overturn a win for Biden. The legislative bodies of the states could have chose to send a slate for Biden.

No, it actually is not. Most states have set up a system where they use the voters votes to determine the slate. But the legislators having the power to choose the electors is part of the checks and balances. If there is an issue with the votes, they are the closest to the people to get to the bottom of what happened. If they make a choice that doesn't reflect thier constituents, they will damage thier career.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here. Had Scotus taken the case, they could have clarified the constitution on this issue.

By the way, I am not a supporter of Trump nor Biden. I just want to be clear on that.

No, they dropped it on standing, not the constitutional issue. Two justices dissented and said they believed it had standing.

The constitution issue at hand is rather the governor's, courts, and secretary of state have the authority bro change election laws without the input of the stat legislators.

I'm not sure where you are getting the issue of extending past the day of the election. Obviously I did not read all the briefs, but I have followed this via several sources that oppose each other and I skimmed several of the briefs.

Gish galloping? I haven't heard that before.

Sorry, it is getting hard to track all of these cases. LOL. I'm checking out for the evening, but I've enjoyed having a real discussion. I still disagree at this point, but I will look at that case.