Diff link.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XAnajvb8hWm7/
@CountValentine Curious to hear your input on this.
Didn't watch - much too long, but I googled Starr to see what was written up about his opinion. It sounds like the main thing has to do with an interpretation of the line in the constitution that grants the states power over the elections. Vox did a decent piece on this.
Basically the question is whether the constitution intended to give this power solely to the actual legislative branch of each state, or to the law making process of each state (which would then include things like other 2 branches of the state governments). The relevance to PA, at least prior to the election, is that the extending of the deadline by when ballots had to be received in order to be counted (if they were postmarked by election date) was done through the executive and judicial branches of PA, not through the legislature. When it went to the SCOTUS, they split 4-4, thus leaving the change in place. The 4 that voted against PA were essentially broadcasting their adoption of the more literal interpretation, that only the state legislative branch holds power over elections.
It won't be relevant to this election, since apparently Biden won without the ballots that came in during the disputed period (ETA: that claim came from the Vox video, I don't know the source), but it may be very relevant to other cases in the future, especially if ACB joins the 4 that voted against. This could come up with regard to things like gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and poll closures - all of which R controlled state legislatures have used or tried to use to control voting in their states - and in some instances were previously stopped by the judicial or executive branches of those states.