1) I think Roberts has taken a bit of unfair beating on Twitter. He seems to agree with the majority that Cuomo likely violated 1st amendment and temporary relief would be appropriate but argues it's moot since Cuomo already changed his restrictions.
The other conservatives on the bench argue they needed to take action now anyway because there is the constant threat that Cuomo could reimpose the restrictions and they shouldn't have to come back to stop him. That's not a substantive disagreement on whether Cuomo was wrong.
A bunch of it is rehashing old stuff that's been thrown out in every other suit (Affidavits of people thinking something is suspicious, complaining about no signature match during recounts - which would have been impossible) etc.
Aside from that, there is a request to basically invalidate the election because they don't think GA's SoS and Governor should have the power to set any election rules since that power belongs to the state legislature. That's obviously not going anywhere.
Not only is it wrong, but the time to file a complaint about the rules that were set out long before the election would have been before the election.
Sweden has been hit by a second wave, which has led them to impose significant restrictions they previously avoided, and to admit their initial approach to the virus did not yield expected results. Their deaths per capita still way exceed their neighbors.
A lot of mistakes have been made during this ordeal. The initial lockdowns were excessive and should have been better targeted. But the U.S. would have faced disaster if we had adopted Sweden's approach, and those who advocated for it were just wrong.
See some of the responses here. People were absolutely convinced that Sweden wouldn't face a second wave and their economy would fae much better (it didn't):
It's the same strawman over and over again. Trump lost by tens of thousands of votes in multiple states. Asserting that there is no evidence, after looking at claims, of widespread fraud that would have changed the results is not the same as saying no fraud or don't look into it.
As an example. In Michigan, there is a legitimate dispute over ~400 ballots in Wayne County. If it was a close race, we would need to fight it out over them. Trump lost the state by over 150,000 votes.
Pointing to 400 ballots to suggest a different result is annoying.
"Plaintiffs asked the court to disenfranchise almost 7 million voters"
"This Court has been presented with strained
legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative
complaint and unsupported by evidence."
The case was dismissed with prejudice.
Combined with the Trump campaign dropping their case in Michigan, this now clears the way for both states to certify their votes next Monday.