Attorney Lin Wood: “I do Believe From What I Have Studied About The Texas Lawsuit, That It Has A High Probability Of Success” Warns Against Communist Plot

The Red State Observer echoed Lin Wood's confidence in the SCOTUS Case: 

Modern technology and data analytics being what they have become, the electoral process of each state has now itself become a partisan battleground prior to a single vote being cast, with political parties and political interest groups using a variety of means to compel election officials to act – or not act – in ways the party or interest group believes gives an advantage to its candidates.

State actors are often partisans themselves, and seemingly take actions – or fail to act – in ways that are interpreted as being motivated by their partisan interests. The combination of “shaping” the battlefield of the election process prior to Election day, and influencing the actions and inactions of Elections Officials at the state or local level in the process of counting the votes, has now led to allegations that the outcome of the election has been corrupted by partisan interests that put vote totals ahead of fairness, integrity or transparency in the process of arriving at those totals.

By virtue of becoming a state, can it be said that each state has taken an obligation to each and every other state with regard to how it goes about carrying out the process of conducting its election for the only two offices which are subject to a nationwide vote?

These are the only two offices where the voting in one state has a direct impact on the voters of other states. For those two offices, do states have cognizable rights to expect that each and every other state will conduct elections for President and Vice President in a manner that guarantees ballot integrity, and a fair and accurate count of the votes?

The Gateway Pundit had this to say about the state of PA's response to the Texas case:

In a not-so-cerebral response to a suit from Texas at the Supreme Court, Pennsylvania responded to the accusations of massive corruption and unconstitutional acts that took place in four states (including Pennsylvania) in the 2020 election, and claimed that because Obama judges haven’t addressed their corruption, no one should.

A response to the case against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia was due by 3:00 pm today.  The states met the deadline set by the Supreme Court.  Pennsylvania responded:

Pennsylvania responded to Texas’ lawsuit at the Supreme Court Thursday, calling it “legally indefensible” and an “affront to principles of constitutional democracy.”