From the article (in the quote indents); I'll use numbers for breakdown:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

1. So one Soverign State is going to sue another Soverign State over that Soverign State's internal power like Elections. This completely violates many basic and fundamental principles of our Republic & Constitution. In order for this to be held 'legal' would effectively remove State Sovereignty and be open-borders, unaccountability within the US National Borders. Don't think that within 10 years, Dems States will sue to have Rep States teach transgender kindergardener story-time in their schools.

2. By suing multiple defendents via a State (as opposed to say Sidney/private); means now the A.G.s in those dirty States can openly "legally" coordinate their defense/evidence/resources/witnesses/etc. Basically it just gave a green light for the criminals to hold an organized crime boss meeting of $oros lawyers.

3. There is no regular "Election Procedures" in the US Constitution. As I say in my WIN&WIN Plan spam; Electors & Elections are two completely different parts of law, even though everyone talks, thinks, campaigns, lawsuits, teaches, etc. that they are not. You could wave a magic wand and remove ALL election laws in the entire USA and still do ELECTORS just fine. This is part of the Founding Fathers' wisdom by inventing the Electoral College (somewhat like the Holy Roman Empire Electors but for our Republic).

Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.

4. This is Constitutionally/legally power backwards in the first sentence. The Electors clause gives power to the State Legislatures. Everything else, like State Law or Election Procedures or even having an Election comes below the State Legislature in power; it is only advisory and not binding upon the Legislature to appoint whom they decide to. The problem is they framed it assuming that lower illegal/unconstitutional stuff is legal, and therefore they have some fictional grounds to sue another State over. This would be like you suing your neighbor, because their kid stole 5 bucks from your neighbor. *huh, makes no sense.

5. There is no nonsense Equal Protection crap of Bush v Gore, sauce: https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8urdISD/x/c/1BkVBayCgP There is NO NATIONAL ELECTIONS IN THE USA. The Federal Gov does NOT f'g do Elections. Do NOT let the Dems break something, and say, "gee to fix this we need to break the Constitution" eg. The Fed, The Draft, Lowering Voting Age, Direct Election of Senators, Nationalizing the States' militias, The Patriot Act, etc.

6. One State does not get to sue another State over how that State does things differently which is within the power of both States' Soveriegnty! To even think this is legal is so wrong, any lawyer should be disbarred imo; and any judge impeached if they held this view; it's a disqualifier.

7. Something about getting the speck out your own eye first; or people whom live in glass houses... Texas probably has some of its own corruption and cleaning up first; even if it did somehow have the legal power to sue another State for the same.

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors.

8. THIS IS IMPORTANT.

But this power rests with congress, per Article 2, of WHEN(timeframe) that legal power is granted to State Legislatures. LIke if every day this year, a State Legislature adopted a different SLATE of Electors, most all wouldn't legally be meaningful, except for the SLATE which was last adopted during the window of time that congress said so. This is like in my WIN&WIN Plan, but likely they didn't put in the same legal reasoning of Striking some unconstitutional legal codes/laws. Or upholding other codes at least for the timebeing. How the lawsuit does this request is key, but likely it's FUBAR given everything else (I can tell the fingerprints on the document.)

9. So granted the above was the article, and not quoted in " from the lawsuit; but again, the stuff above should make any patriots blood boil rather than cheer; but I will continue my breakdown:

The lawsuit says:

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.

10. First sentance, uggg See it starts with the assumption that absentee and mail voting is even legal in the first place; they cannot have proper chain of custody to begin with. This is like Masterpiece Cake, where the fine print "givens" of "we're not going to even argue these points", gives the Lefties all the Legal Room to expand & move goalposts with SCOTUS case law game, no matter which way their "ruling goes". So if SCOTUS rules on this, it's designed to/will backdoor make mail & absentee legal as a "new" baseline like OR & WA.

11. Second sentance, see this is where mixing "elections" with "Electors" is clearly flawed. BECAUSE the Electoral College in the US Constitution; it doesn't matter if they printed a trillion ballots or used an American Idol call in your winner; or a 100 round golfing tourney to decide; or a coin toss. The public "voting" for POTUS/VP Electors are NOT a "normal" Election. It's NOT legally possible to have the 2nd sentence matter, bc the VOTE doesn't DIRECTLY empower the winner. The power ALWAYS resides with the State Legislature. The Sec of State cannot, the governor cannot, the ballot box cannot force the Electors; it's PUSHING ON A STRING.

12. Third sentence, They are intentional as my list of 25+ things spells out. Again, it's those States whom can do something, not another State forcing them.

13. Fourth sentence, this occurs because of a monster amount of illegal laws & the Court NOT doing its job for 87 years (ASHWANDER RULES). Don't go to the SCOTUS and bitch about some other officials violating their Oaths; without also Demanding that the Court hold to its own Oaths first, and repeal the Ashwander Rules!

14. 5th Sentence, NO the acts violated mostly State Constitutions. and NO bc again the power in the US Constitution stays with the State Legislature. There are lots of laws which violste this, why not attack those like I do? The FUNNY thing is, if this is say the TX A.G.; they're violating the exact same State & US Constitutions too, bc their to enforce their Laws, not another States laws, they have no power to do so, anymore than those whom changed those other States procedures without the legislatures. Separation of Powers & 3 Layers of gov; are being violated by everyone!

…

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.

15. First sentance, This is not legally possible. This false framed question will give Lefties a win (and rewrite the interpretation of the clause) no matter which way it's answered. It's the "Evil Spock" to my WIN&WIN Plan.

16. Second sentance, American /English law doesn't work that way. Sorta like car accidents, which chain collide, who is at fault. This "pass through" like reasoning, isn't really legal but is written into tax laws, but certainly NOT in Constitutional logic. Which is why to "win" this argument would bastardize not just the US Constitution but the Foundation of American law itself rests upon.

17. This sentence is such muh democracy, muh reparations, marxist crap. It's NOT F'G POSSIBLE FOR "VOTERS" TO INJURE OTHER "VOTERS", yet alone across jurisdictions, yet alone when the vote is advisory. One classroom votes to go to the zoo, another classroom at another school votes and cheatd to go to the museum instead. The first classroom still goes to the zoo but sues for the second bc they cheated and went to the museum. Seriously it's this legally illogical.

18. There's more, but I'll leave it there. Hope this helps.

For those that want to read the differences between Redpilled Strictly-Constitutional Legal grounds vs what most cases do, here's my comment 40 days ago:

https://thedonald.win/p/11PVyVHES9/x/c/19BaD16yMq

Get Republican State Legislatures to appoint their DJT/Pence Electors!

WIN&WIN PLAN! Keep it going Pedes. SEND IT ALONG!

https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8EhtERu/for-everyone-who-wants-djtpence-/