There were a lot of lawsuits, but the Trump team had only filed 4 or 5, none of which were heard as far as evidence is concerned, with the exception of one filed in the state of PA where the court ruled it should be heard by a higher court and that the case had merit (bet your preferred outlet of media lies didn't tell you that part).
Sorry, this is just false. I've read several of the rulings and in evaluating the Trump case, the judge looked at the evidence provided -- and determined that the evidence provided by the Trump campaign did not require an evidentiary hearing. One of the rulings I read did a great job of going through the various affidavits provided with the Trump lawsuit and showed how the affidavits did not provide any evidence of wrongdoing. I've broken it down elsewhere (and don't feel like searching again) but basically the judge found that most of the Trump affidavits actually supported the rules were followed. Most of the rest were complaints that some people who wanted to be poll watchers were not allowed in (or not allowed back in after going to lunch) because there were several hundred Republicans trying to be poll watchers, but only 100 for each party were allowed in to be watchers (though at times there were over 150 Republicans in the room).
What you don't mention about the one that went to a higher court, it was a lawsuit filed about a week before the election where they were challenging the decision to count votes that arrived up to three days after the election, so long as the ballots were postmarked on or before election day. Now, there are two things here, 1) because of how late it was filed, courts were cautious about changing the rules after people had started mailing in ballots that could be late -- courts hate to change "election rules" after voting has started, as it tends to invalidate votes that were made according to the rules at the time the vote was 'cast' (or in this case mailed).
The Supreme Court decided to delay a decision on the case until after the election, so they could see what would happen with the vote and if those late votes might change election results -- if they would not change the vote, then they need not rule before the election was certified but could take their time and decide the case correctly. In the end, the "late" ballots received were smaller than lead that Biden had in Pennsylvania -- so the case was "moot" in terms of the 2020 election. All deciding the case would do is change the vote totals, it could not change the outcome and likely wouldn't have even changed the percentage of the vote each candidate won. As such, from what I recall, the case is on the Supreme Court docket so they can decide the case without having to rush a decision.
Higher courts refused to look at that one as well, regardless of its merit. To make a claim there was no evidence is simply ignorant as there wasn't any court willing to look at the evidence. Not a single one ruled they weren't taking a case from the Trump team because they didn't have any evidence. That line was just a media mantra, not reality.
And, again, this is just false. Again, pretty much every court looked at the evidence provided to them -- they just determined that the evidence provided did not meet the standard required to take the trial further. The Higher Courts reviewed the rulings of the lower courts, they looked at the evidence they were supposed to look at. Since judges went through the affidavits to explain why they did not require a hearing, the Higher Courts examined that evidence to see if the lower court judge was correct. Despite the fact that a number of Trump-appointed higher court judges heard these cases, none of them found fault with the lower court rulings dismissing the cases.
Now, if you want to talk Texas, it was properly decided. Yes, I know a lot of you don't understand "standing" but Texas did not have it. Yes, Texas has an interest in who is elected but they can't tell other states how to conduct their votes. Worse, Texas did some of the same things they complained about other states doing -- such as the governor unilaterally changing voting rules. And notice, again, that the Trump appointed justices voted Texas lacked standing -- so is Trump just incompetent at selecting justices, or maybe the Justices actually followed the law and the Constitution? Regardless, as pointed out, both Justices Alito and Thomas believe that, even not having standing, the Supreme Court was obligated to hear the Texas case. But they did clearly say that, despite voting to hear the case, they would not have ruled in Texas' favor -- and those are two of the most conservative justices in the entire judiciary.
It also ignores all the stuff aggregated in places like this:
Here Is The Evidence
So yea, I'm disputing what you said, but I'm certainly not disputing facts, as you didn't actually provide any.
I'm sorry, that "Here is the Evidence" site should be titled, here are the allegations, most of which have already been disproven. As an example the first couple of items on the list were claims of people whose addresses were wrong or illegally voted in Georgia. The issue with that, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), at the order of the Secretary of State, performed an audit of voting envelopes. In their audit, the GBI found that there were issues with two ballots, where they didn't thing the signatures matching was done correctly -- and upon investigation they found that both votes were lawfully cast. What they didn't find is "fake home addresses" or "out of state voters" -- and they were looking for them.
The rest of the list is more of the same. The Pennsylvania one appears to be on the false claim that there were more votes cast than ballots applied for -- when the truth was that the allegation was based on incorrect information -- the "ballots requested" number was taken from the primary election -- that, in fact, more ballots were requested for the November election than there were total votes. The fact that that "evidence" page hasn't removed numerous items that are proven to be incorrect is pretty strong evidence that the site has zero interest in what is true, instead they want to rile up the gullible.
