I agree that the OATH of office is the central argument, and if people ignore it then why are they made to swear it in the first place? It is not for decoration, BTW.

Tracy's argument is along the lines of SCOTUS does not have the power to unseat elected members of congress, or change the outcome of an election.

However, the OATH is a deeper argument, because one swears to uphold the constitution. To break it, is treasonous. Also, this targets congressmen from both sides of the isle, so technically SCOTUS is not being politically partisan in considering the purpose of the OATH. the fact that more Dems than Reps voted to ignore the 100+ petitioners claiming that the election was full of flaws, is incidental. the fact is that they did, and therefore ignored their OATH.

So, in my opinion SCOTUS does have that power to remove those people from office.

We shall see.