"Congress will meet around 1 p.m. Eastern time in a joint session, with Pence presiding. We will have live coverage at The Washington Post, starting at 12 p.m.
Clerks will hand him the envelopes of states’ electoral college results in alphabetical order. He will read them aloud. Congress will vote on each one.
When they get to Arizona, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and a number of other Republican senators, as well as Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), will object. They are supposed to object in writing and hand it to Pence to read. But these lawmakers will probably try to make speeches, too.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or other top House Democrats may respond.
Then the House and the Senate split up and can debate each challenge for up to two hours. Leaders in both chambers want to quash these quickly. They will hold a vote on whether to accept the challenge. It will fail in each chamber. (Here’s more about the different scenarios, which all lead to the confirmation of Biden’s win.)
Lawmakers will rejoin in a joint session and keep going down the list of states. We expect Republicans to challenge all or most of the swing states that Trump lost, from Arizona to Wisconsin and on down to Georgia.
This could stretch well into the overnight hours or even through the day Thursday. By the end, Pence will have to declare that Biden has won the electoral college and will be the next president. (Even though Trump has started pressuring Pence not to do so.)
All that’s left after this is to inaugurate Biden on Jan. 20. But the rift in the Republican Party created by this day will remain long afterward."

There is FAR more than enough evidence to have proceeded to a court hearing/trial in several jurisdictions. Merit was clearly present in many filings. Only an eye on outcomes could suggest not hearing cases, generally.
That the Courts have chose to shirk their Constitutional duty to adjudicate these claims is proof, to me, that the judiciary is now, officially and completely political, rather than Constitutional. There is simply NO argument that SAYING the election was not compromised is as useful or unifying as a trial that effectively PROVES there was no organized fraud. Dissent could be easily spanked down if a fair hearing showed that even the investigated allegations could not be proven, but not investigating?

I'm sure I'll hear from those who see it differently about how some of these folks were "Trump appointees" or "Bush appointees" etc. To that I say:

1) With appointments being political, there is great doubt that ANY appointment is made on qualification alone, and that the probability approaches 100%, instead, that appointments are made with quid pro quo expectations, that the appointment is the quid pro quo, or that the appointment is made to place a compromised individual in a position to do a (blackmail) favor later on.

2) As evidence of my hypothesis, I cite Elena Kagan, the lead attorney in the preparation of the case to defend Obamacare (ACA) in the Supreme Court. She was removed from that duty when she ascended to the SCOTUS as an Obama appointee, and then refused to recuse herself, despite devoting a couple of years to upholding the law.

3) Just a couple of years ago John Roberts voted in the minority in a Texas abortion case, saying then the Texas law did not impose a substantial restriction on abortion and should have stood. When a similar case crossed the SCOTUS docket in 2020, Roberts effectively changed his decision, saying both that the Texas case was wrongly decided, but that the Stare Decisis principle requires him to vote to affirm the older decision. Only a political decision, or utter lack of principle, can yield diametrically opposed decisions on roughly similar facts. Well, those possibilities, or blackmail.

4) John Roberts has been reported as taking an abjectly political stance in the face of the 2020 election challenges, reportedly telling Junior Court members that "he will tell them how to vote" and that the Court won't do "a F-ing thing" to assist Trump. Political.