...we are having this debate about an area where the legislature is arguably uniquely empowered. Also, what difference does it make whether "a court says a law is broken" in the case of elections? The question is what, if anything, a court can do to REMEDY a situation where a law is broken, and, if it is powerless to remedy the situation, then how do we remedy it and who does the remedying?

In elections, not only might courts be unreliable arbiters -- being politicized in their own right -- of the facts at hand, but they also might be incapable of providing remedies if the situation called for it. The 2020 election was a perfect example -- courts often refused to hear cases and, in other cases, simply did not have adequate time to adjudicate them. Even if they had heard and adjudicated cases, however, they could not have provided any satisfactory remedy (which, knowing this, is one reason why they refused to hear them in the first place). Obviously, a non-solution can't be a solution.

As an example of the remedy problem, let's say that the PA Supreme Court ruled on January 5, 2020, that laws had, in fact, been broken in the conduct of the PA election. What then? So what? They can rule that laws were broken, but they have no remedy. I challenge you to tell me what remedy a court could have provided in that hypothetical.

Additionally, since the PA results were already certified, who's to say that Congress would not and could not have voted to accept them -- and rightfully so, since they were "certified" by the appropriate certifying authority -- regardless of the court's ruling. Further, even if Congress wanted to honor the court's decision, what could either Congress or the court have done to remedy the PA election? Nothing, outside of the people's representatives -- i.e., the legislature -- stepping into the breach to make the best of the situation. I challenge you to devise a better remedy.

That's why it's arguably ultimately up to the legislature to resolve an inherently political matter politically. If they are wise, then legislators will only exercise such power in the most extreme of circumstances, but such circumstances could arise, and, in many people's mind, did arise in 2020.

Moving on, your comments about the courts and law-breaking involve circular reasoning. You say electors can vote however they want because the law permits it (which is, of course, true) but that "the law requires other people in the process to do certain things.other officials must follow the law". As we saw in 2020, however, that is manifestly untrue. Other people -- including courts themselves -- did NOT follow the law, rendering the entire process arguably void. Legislatures don't have to sit there with their thumb up their ass while other branches of government run roughshod over the legislature's exclusive power, which is to make the election law.

It's absurd to say that we must go to all this trouble of electing a legislature represent the people's will by passing laws using a democratic process to run our democratic process, but then other government officials -- including courts -- can violate those laws while the legislature (the people's representatives) has no say in the matter. These are some of the thorny issues that hopefully the USSC will take up and provide some guidance. A non-solution cannot be a solution. We aren't looking for the perfect solution -- just the best solution.