Qpost 4 Oct 29, 2017 states "What SC decision opened the door for a sitting President to activate - what must be showed?"
Searching through past cases I've found possible canidates but nothing that really sticks out IMO.
Q told us early on it had it be the military. Despite insurection taking place throughout the US by ANTIFA/BLM. It wasn't until the Capitol "breach" that it started gaining the attention of everyone. Mainly due to MSM pushing it to impeach President Trump. This caused a lot of people, fren and normie, to give the Insurection Act another look.
§252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Did you catch it? "Make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings". You must show that the ordinary course of judicial proceedings is being fully obstructed and impracticable. What happens when every court refuses to hear your case, including SCOTUS?
The Supreme court decision NOT to hear the case opened the door for the President to "call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
Q post 461
Jan 04, 2018 What makes a movie GOOD? GREAT ACTORS? Q
So if the Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh (BGK) failure to hear the Trump-Texas case (for instance) was essential to the operation of "the plan" (which it seems it was) was it a betrayal? Well, it might possibly have been. But that to me requires a nearly impossible foreknowledge of just how the three of them would behave.
To me it's more likely that in some way BGK are essential gears in this incredible social machine. In other words I think they may have been recruited. I don't think this would have been done overtly. BGK are super bright. They know the law. It wouldn't take more than a suggestion of the desirability of using the IA instead of the courts in order to get the big worldwide solution to our worldwide problem as opposed to getting the little, temporary solution the SCOTUS could provide us.
We all watched BGK pretty closely during their confirmation hearings. My impressions of all three were that they are of good character - highly moral, highly intelligent people.
Maybe they are are even warriors.