What Trump needs the Supreme Court to do in order to win a vote in the House is not what most commenters think Trump needs.
The common assumption is that Trump requires the Court to endorse something to the effect of –
“Biden? Biden really does suck; and because he sucks we rule that Trump is the winner of the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada.”
That is the misperception.
What Trump actually needs the Supreme Court to find is nothing more complicated than –
A) The Supreme Court rules there was enough vote fraud (and/or illegal/unconstitutional breaches of election laws) in most, if not all, of the contested swing states to throw the result into doubt.
B) The Supreme Court blesses the state legislatures in question to review the evidence of fraud in their own state and decide by themselves what remedy they want to pursue, while the Court itself declines to issue a remedy of its own – presumably out of concern that it wants to be involved in the Electoral College process and keep the process moving to the next phases through the states and Congress but without being remembered as the last body in the process that (officially…) put an end to Biden’s Presidential hopes.
The difference between these two, potential, rulings is that a finding that Trump is the winner of the swing states would be a legally binding decision by the Court.
This would be nice, but is unnecessary.
All that is necessary is for the Court to rule there was fraud and the state legislatures must decide for themselves what remedy to pursue.
This course of action would sound serious, but, in reality, not be legally binding at all.
It simply restates the fact that state legislatures can ignore the vote tallies in their state if they suspect fraud and select a different set of Electors.
But the states already have this power enshrined in the Constitution!
The Court reminding state governments of this right, and deferring a remedy to the states, changes nothing legally because this is already the Constitutional process.
What would change is that, by endorsing Trump’s accusations of fraud, the Court would (perhaps unintentionally?) be creating a cover story for GOP state legislatures to justify sending Republican electors despite official vote totals.
GOP state legislators must be, more or less, in sync with their GOP voting base.
Should their GOP base see their new, shiny, Conservative Supreme Court of their dreams rule definitively (“definitively” at least as far as Republicans are concerned…) that their prior assumptions were correct all along and there was decisive vote fraud, then the pressure on state legislators from Trump and their GOP base to appoint Republican electors would be overwhelming, regardless of what state legislators would privately think.
And this process would all be initiated by the Supreme Court issuing a legally non-binding finding of voter fraud; non-binding because they would be delegating the authority to remedy the situation to the state bodies which the Constitution has already authorized to act as a defense against vote fraud!
Even if the Supreme Court invalidated/voided the results in one or two states (most likely Pennsylvania on Equal Protection grounds and Georgia on grounds that state election laws were ignored) this would just cycle back the decision on a remedy back to the state legislatures.