Here's the problem with that position (from my point of view, and I venture to guess the point of view of everyone that is not a supporter of Donald Trump and/or the GOP currently) (and I truly don't mean this as an attack or gotcha at all, I'm just using the post as a starting point):
Words mean things. They always have and they always will. No one, no party, no group, no religion, no country, no government, ever uses them perfectly every time. However, clinging to the overriding cultural norms of the use of words - especially in politics, law and government - matters a great deal. As a small aside, in a courtroom - every courtroom - words, phrases and even written format, matter greatly. They are, in essence, the bedrock of how the system works.
Regardless of whether or not a partisan, hyper-partisan, moderate just going to listen and hear, and/or agnostic towards to the information provided attended those ballroom meetings who also happened to be an elected representative of a particular state, chooses to call them "hearings," are immaterial. And you need to think this through logically. If those things were "hearings" then the formal meeting of every single town council, county freeholder, parish committee, state legislature and United States Congress, is no longer necessary to govern our towns, counties, states and national governments. Simply put, whatever smaller-than-the-whole group of those elected leaders decides to meet together and hold "hearings" can do it in any locale, at any time, with - and this is important - any structure they deem fit without a single rule in place to protect things like, substantive rights, due process rights, or anything else.
And the problem with Donald Trump - policy and general politics aside - is that those norms have been obliterated. And we argue and debate now from a point lesser and lower than what the norms and standards were for the collective faith in our systems. Now, I understand - and have even joined in some - the argument that the "system" was corrupt and needed to be broken up anyway. I sympathize with that and even agree with it depending on the subject. But not as a whole. The system as a whole works. It works well. And while it is messy, sometimes too slow, sometimes too fast, sometimes hyper partisan, sometimes not partisan enough, and sometimes gets "it" "wrong" - it works. And I would still argue that for the most part it works the way it was intended in a 30,000 foot view sense. Trump laid a flamethrower to all of it. Whether it was good and just or not. And for those of us that oppose him, we believe he did it for his own personal benefit.
Again, though, beyond the policy outcomes and election outcomes - words have to mean things. Especially certain words when it comes to law, policy and government. And frankly, the Trump side of this would agree - in fact, that is on some level the argument in the Texas filing - words mean things - the words written by the Defendant states promising to take certain actions in certain ways were not followed. That is their argument broken down as simply as you can break it down.
And this is where, for many arguments, everything breaks down. Because I want and need my words to mean things and matter and you (the collective you) want your words to mean things and matter. This is where
@Joe Bryant is trying to shoehorn grace into everything that happens, and rightly so. And we will continue to debate, argue and keep going at American politics and government the way we have for over 250 years.
We can argue if Texas has a case and is making good legal arguments. I don't think they are. I have the benefit of understanding how all of these systems work together for the most part and understand that others don't. Not because I'm better than them, it just happens to be my professional field. Similarly, I don't argue DNA sequencing with any scientists, because once you get past words like helix, RNA and the letters A C G and T, I have no knowledge base to get very far. I would still like my opinion to matter.
I also must accept that my opinion might be wrong based on my own ignorance. We should pay attention to the frontiers of our ignorance. That is where you find knowledge. So in this arena, where I know what I'm talking about - and just because someone is an elected official in a hyper partisan environment does not grant them knowledge of something, I would encourage you to at least consider this one salient fact - they were not hearings. "Hearings" mean something. And for the good of our government, at every level, you may want to seriously consider how bad it will be for everyone if they were "hearings." Because the next "hearings," held in such a manner that are then used to challenge the bedrock integrity of our governmental structure may not be held by anyone you would want to have that authority.
Words mean things. They weren't hearings.