False. To help lift you up to a discussion level -- "a valid cause of action" -- IS the remedy., And in most ALL of those cases -- it was in the papers filed as "decertifying or halting the certifications".. Essentially asking the courts to put the entire national election in limbo for what could easily be a year or more.. What those litigants WANTED was nothing the lower courts would ever sanction. Those suites were NOT ABOUT shoring up the holes THOSE SAME lower courts ILLEGALLY created less than 90 days BEFORE the election.. So that there was NO TIME to challenge those verdicts prior to the election..
Go read what I said again with that "remedy" to your cluelessness.
With all due respect you are confused. Most Courts refused to decertify the elections because the Plaintiff’s pleadings were defective, moot or based on untrue and false information:
In re Bowyer, No. 20-858 (S. Ct.)
(electoral college)
Complaint Filed: December 2, 2020
State: Arizona
Current Status or Final Disposition: Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied (March 1, 2021)
Summary: Plaintiffs, Republican Party nominees to be Presidential Electors for Arizona, filed suit against Arizona Governor Ducey and Arizona Secretary of State Hobbs. The plaintiffs argued that the Arizona election had violated the Elections and Electors Clauses, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as state election law. The allegations included fabricated ballots and fraudulent use of the election system’s hardware. The plaintiffs also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the governor from transmitting the certified election results to the Electoral College.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case, concluding that the court could not decertify the election results in the state and that accusations of election fraud “that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court.” The plaintiffs then filed an emergency petition for extraordinary writ of mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court on December 15, 2020. In January 2021, the Supreme Court denied the motion to expedite consideration of the case without issuing an opinion. On March 1, the Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus without issuing an opinion.
King v. Whitmer, No. 20-815 (S. Ct.)
(fraud and vote dilution)
Complaint Filed: November 25, 2020
State: Michigan
Current Status or Final Disposition: Briefs in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed (January 14, 2021)
Summary: Plaintiffs, a group of Michigan voters and nominees of the Republican Party to be presidential electors in Michigan, brought suit against Michigan Governor Whitmer and other state officials, alleging widespread voter fraud and various violations of Michigan voting law. The plaintiffs then filed a First Amended Complaint on November 29, alleging various constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 of: (1) the Elections and Electors Clauses, (2) the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, and (3) the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs also alleged a violation of the Michigan Election Code. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety, finding that Michigan had already certified its election results and that the court did not have the power to undo them. The court concluded by noting that the suit “seems less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek—as much of that relief is beyond the power of this Court—and more about the impact of their allegations on People’s faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government.” The plaintiffs petitioned for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on December 11, 2020, and then filed a motion for expedited consideration a week later.
On January 11, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to expedite without issuing an opinion. A few days later, the respondents filed their briefs in opposition to the petition. In their briefs, the respondents argued that the petitioners’ appeal of their denied motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent counting Michigan’s electoral votes should be dismissed as moot, and that the petitioners were, in any case, not entitled to the injunction because they did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that the 2020 General Election in Michigan had violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Electors and Elections Clauses.
There are many cases along this vain. Your argument that Trump lost because the Courts were afraid of putting the election ”in limbo” was not justification in any case that I read. If it were, it was a small minority of cases.
Trump’s attorneys are facing disbarment because they lied to the court and abused the court system. What is it about that you can’t understand? If they had any meritorious justification for their bullshit lawsuits , they would not be facing the ultimate legal sanction for an attorney,