I think there is some confusion because Barrett did not get involved in a motion to expedite the case which is still before the court. That was the 4-4 motion, as you recall, which punted the SC's ruling to after the election.
Which may have been a blessing in disguise. If the SC had ruled for a hard Election Day deadline, the PA Dems might have had to use a more subtle form of fraud. Without that ruling, they went with the highly blatant and more easily discarded late naked ballots.
I suppose that without swift, firm action from the SC a sense of arrogance and surity took hold. The PA Dems must have thought that no one and nobody would question or stop them from stealing what they felt entitled to take.
I think I have a quote fitting to this situation.
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Its from a book I don't think the Dems ever read.