Supreme Court May Hear Case That Would REMOVE Joe Biden From Office & 387 Congress Members | Summary and Q&A

TL;DR

Utah brothers want the Supreme Court to remove Biden and reinstate Trump, but it is a long shot.

Key Insights

• 🥰 The chances of the Supreme Court hearing the lawsuit and removing Biden from office are extremely slim.
• 📫 The lawsuit raises questions about the constitutionality of universal mail-in voting that should be addressed.
• 😘 The low approval rating for Congress indicates a widespread dissatisfaction with the current system.

Transcript

Read and summarize the transcript of this video on Glasp Reader (beta).

Questions & Answers

Q: Is there a realistic chance of the Supreme Court removing Biden from office and reinstating Trump?

The chances of this happening are extremely unlikely, given the large number of members of Congress and the president and vice president that would need to be removed.

Q: What constitutional issues are raised by the lawsuit?

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of universal mail-in voting and argues that the Supreme Court should hear the case to resolve these questions.

Q: How does the low approval rating for Congress play into this situation?

The fact that only 25% of the country approves of Congress suggests that many people would be in favor of removing the majority of Congress. However, this is not a realistic outcome.

Q: Is there something deeply wrong with the country, as the lawsuit suggests?

While there may be valid concerns about the state of the country, it is unlikely that a lawsuit of this nature would be the solution to addressing those concerns.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Two Utah brothers are urging the Supreme Court to hear their lawsuit claiming that members of Congress violated their oath of office by certifying the 2020 presidential election results.

• The likelihood of the Supreme Court removing hundreds of members of Congress and reinstating Trump is highly improbable.

• The lawsuit raises questions about the constitutionality of universal mail-in voting and argues that the court should hear the case.