It's really difficult to discuss these things with you when you are so incredibly misinformed.
First, the suit that the Supreme Court declined to hear due to lack of standing was filed by the Texas Attorney General (with a handful of red state AGs signing on). The AG did not make
any claims of election fraud in that suit and instead tried to challenge the election results in other states.
The Supreme Court ruled that "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections", which you agreed with in your last post, when you said "
Yes, the states appoint electors according to the states rules, and other states have no say in how that is done".
However, if you were just being sarcastic then I have to wonder if you would be ok with a Democrat state suing a Republican state over how they run their elections (e.g., gerrymandering, lack of polling stations).
Further, Trump's lawyers did file suits that included claims of fraud, and all of those were rejected by the courts (some even with Trump-appointed judges). You can read through a summary of these cases here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-elec ... l_election
If there's one you think was decided incorrectly, then point it out and we'll discuss it.
Finally, regarding Sidney Powell, here are some items for you to read....
Sidney Powell Sanctioned By Judge Over False Election Claims
Judge Orders Pro-Trump Election Lawyers To Pay
Here's her filing in which she argues (regarding her election fraud claims) "Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact."
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.