And if you read the timeline they give, you can see that the SC wanted this get out of jail free card. Now there's no standing to riot against the Constitution. It's not up for interpretation, and Q has always stressed that this all has to be done by the book.
Four civilian brothers were successful in bringing a case to the SCOTUS that's citing constitutional law around certain members of congress failing to uphold the oath they took when sworn into office to uphold said document's directives.
Specifically, when an election has questioners to its validity posed by (I believe) 100 members of congress, and the other members not only don't uphold their duty to investigate, they block said investigation, they are committing treason.
The relief sought is the removal of all such persons from their positions of power, including being barred from ever holding public office again.
And if you read the timeline they give, you can see that the SC wanted this get out of jail free card. Now there's no standing to riot against the Constitution. It's not up for interpretation, and Q has always stressed that this all has to be done by the book.
can you give a TLDR on what this actually is?
It's not rocket science...
Four civilian brothers were successful in bringing a case to the SCOTUS that's citing constitutional law around certain members of congress failing to uphold the oath they took when sworn into office to uphold said document's directives.
Specifically, when an election has questioners to its validity posed by (I believe) 100 members of congress, and the other members not only don't uphold their duty to investigate, they block said investigation, they are committing treason.
The relief sought is the removal of all such persons from their positions of power, including being barred from ever holding public office again.