If it's Kelli Ward's case, this is the decision they are appealing: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Order-2.pdf

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Agree. Bizarre to appeal a ruling that went at least partly in your favor, and then there is that jurisdictional point.

Because no case has been dismissed on the merits (i.e. after hearing the evidence) yet. Most of the big cases have been the victims of "motions to dismiss" because of a lack of standing or other procedural flaws. Normally SCOTUS will not review rulings on motions to dismiss because they are not rulings on the merits of any constitutional issue. The same is true of this Parnell case, but he makes a good case. However, the only remedy the SCOTUS can give is to send it back for a full hearing before the original judge. They can't themselves decide that Act 77 was illegal and throw out the mail-ins. However, Parnell has asked SCOTUS for an injunction to stop the electoral process pending the SCOTUS' decision on whether to review the dismissal of his case. If he wins that, then it at least screws things up for a while, and sends a signal that there were problems with this election.
The only case that is actually currently before SCOTUS on the merits is Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar--but that case is about the late ballots in PA that were segregated. The briefing is finished at SCOTUS and they could decide any day if they will take up the case.

It's a hearing before the legislature, I believe.

Can't find anything anywhere.

Only part of it was dismissed, check his twitter for the latest. https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ik3wu0xnzn1dkh/SECOND%20ORDER%20-%20PEARSON%20v.%20KEMP%2011.29.2020.pdf?dl=0

Sorry, there is no permanent link as such, you have to go on the court's website and see if you can search for news on on the case. Or use the PACER system (and you have to pay to see some things) in the federal system. Some Courts will allow you to see the latest filings in election cases on their websites. For the Costantino case, there are updates on the website of Great Lakes Justice Center. For Lin Wood and Sydney, you can usually see their latest filings on their Twitter accounts.

There are actually three suits in PA (that we know of). This one, Kelly v. Boockvar ,about Article 77 in the state courts, 2) Rudy's case in the federal court system that had a recent negative ruling in the 3rd Circuit (includes equal protection claim about curing ballots), and 3)Penn.Rep. Party v. Boockvar filed in October which is presently at the SCOTUS (about the late ballots) awaiting a decision on whether SCOTUS will hear it (this was where Alito ordered the segregation of ballots).

In MI, there is Constantino v. City of Detroit, about no observers and fraudulent ballots, which the MI Supreme Court said raised serious and disturbing allegations and which should have an evidentiary hearing soon, and Sidney Powell's similar suit filed recently.

In GA, there is Lin Wood's suit about the Consent Decree and Sidney Powell's fraudulent ballot/Dominion suit.

Bear in mind, each time a suit is filed, an injunction request may also be filed, so some rulings relate to the injunctions not on the main suit. However, after some are filed, they can also be dismissed as frivolous or for lack of standing--without consideration of the evidence.

It was from the concurring judgment not the dissent.

This case isn't well suited to go to the SCOTUS anyway because it was a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and not showing a reasonable cause of action and the only issue is whether this case should have been dismissed without hearing evidence. There are two other cases that are better suited to go up. One is already at SCOTUS, the briefing completed on November 25. This one was filed in October by PA GOP and concerns the late ballots and whether the SOS could change election laws without PA legislature. This is the case Dershowitz says is a winner. Alito ordered the late ballots segregated while SCOTUS is considering whether to take the case. No idea how many ballots this affects however. The other is from MI, the Constantino case, which used the same evidence as Rudy G. used in the PA case (re: improper treatment of ballots, no observers etc.). In Constantino, the MI Supreme Court said the allegations were serious and compelling and sent it back to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing (next week I think).

I wish there were more coverage of the recent Michigan Supreme Court order which said fraud evidence was serious and disturbing and noted:

Finally, I am cognizant that many Americans believe that plaintiffs’ claims of electoral fraud and misconduct are frivolous and obstructive, but I am equally cognizant that many Americans are of the view that the 2020 election was not fully free and fair.... (cites polling). The latter is a view that strikes at the core of concerns about this election’s lack of both “accuracy” and “integrity”—values that Const1963, art 2, § 4(1)(h) appears designed to secure>

big because the underlying suit says that the vote by mail rules violated the state constitution. However, this order can be appealed.

Yes, just to explain further...this was a "motion to dismiss" --i.e. a motion to toss out the case before even any evidence was heard (because the plaintiff had no standing to sue and/or it was essentially frivolous)-- so the judge was applying the test for a motion to dismiss. The appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit would then be determining if the judge correctly applied the test to dismiss a case before hearing evidence. If Court of Appeals determines that the judge erred in applying that test, then the remedy would be to send it back to the lower court to allow the case to proceed on the merits (i.e. to hear the evidence). If the Court of appeals says the lower court judge applied the test correctly, then you could ask the SCOTUS to take up the case, but a) its a procedural question not a question of the merits, so why would the SCOTUS bother, and b) even if they agreed that the case should not have been dismissed without a trial, again, the remedy would just be to send it back to the lower court for a trial with evidence.

this was a motion to dismiss the case before even any evidence was heard. so the judge was applying the test for a motion to dismiss. The appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit would then be determining if the judge correctly applied the test. If Court of Appeals determines that the judge erred in applying that test, then the remedy would be to send it back to the lower court to allow the case to proceed on the merits. If the Court of appeals says the lower court judge applied the test correctly, then you could ask the SCOTUS to take up the case, but a) its a procedural question not a question of the merits, so why would the SCOTUS bother, and b) even if they agreed that the case should not have been dismissed without a trial, again, the remedy would just be to send it back to the lower court for a trial.

As a legal strategy it's premature; you don't drop any lawsuits until things are completely sure to turn your way.

Seems a little premature--why not just adjourn any proceedings?

Note justice Mundy's dissent, agreeing with lower court that being 50 feet away is not "meaningful" observation. So with the dissent SCOTUS might be more likely to agree to hear this case.

but he's a member of the Federalist Society and worked for the Republican party

yes, but its a high burden for the defendants to prove that the case should be dismissed summarily (i.e. that it's frivolous). Don't think the judge will dismiss it summarily before trial--and note that the judge is a former member of the Federalist Society, so probably would not go so far as to say Trump's arguments are worthy of dismissal.

These documents are for a different case. The one we are listening to is in the federal court system (District Court)

fyi this is a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that they are arguing today.

Thought to be 10 times worse than the flu but we are talking .1 vs .01 death rate, so it's still pretty low risk, as opposed to the bubonic plague with a death rate of 8% to 10%.

That's exactly what will happen.

if 96% of republicans approve of Trump how can he be so "low" in the polls if about 40% of the electorate is republican? If Fox News viewers support Trump and if Fox News beats CNN and MSNBC Iin ratings by a long shot, how can he be so low in the polls ? Something doesn't make sense.