Oh come on.
You don’t understand how the American legal system works. That’s why you thought the Supreme Court could rule against new states being added.
I don’t understand how the Canadian legal system works, it’s why I don’t talk about it.
Well, I don't think anyone here has a perfect grasp on the electoral college because it's such a labyrinthine and convoluted subject with exceptions to exceptions which in turn have more exceptions, and there many moving parts and theoretical avenues of attack, and some things are the same for all states and other things vary. It's an incredibly complex topic.
So, I try not to say anything with too much certainty. But I know a few things.
I know that it takes one senator and one congressman to trigger a vote in congress for rejecting a states' electors.
I know the VP can flat out reject electoral votes in some scenarios.
I know that if no-one reaches 270 then the house directly elects the President (and the senate elects the VP), but instead of tallying votes per-representative it's tallied per-state (but, paradoxically, still per-senator for the VP iirc).
I don't think it's too much of stretch to say that, in the event that SCOTUS agreed to hear the case but declined to grant any relief in the interim, that Republicans would be working overtime to come up with some combination of factors to throw a wrench in the process with the excuse that "there's still a case in the SC."
I don't like the argument from authority however. If I'm ignorant on a subject in America, or you're ignorant about a Canadian subject, it's not because of where we were born, it's because of what we do or do not know.