[The Pack Knight]

It will be summarily denied without opinion.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to remove members of Congress—that power is vested by the Constitution exclusively in the respective houses of Congress themselves. And even if it had jurisdiction, the Speech and Debate Clause would prohibit the court from punishment members of Congress for actions they took or failed to take there.

[RideForever]

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to remove members of Congress

Except quo warranto actions.

[Dr. Franklin]

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to remove members of Congress—that power is vested by the Constitution exclusively in the respective houses of Congress themselves. And even if it had jurisdiction, the Speech and Debate Clause would prohibit the court from punishment members of Congress for actions they took or failed to take there.

Congress has the power to judge the qualifications of its members, but it cannot alter those qualifications stated in the Constitution itself. Powell v. McCormack The federal courts, however, could make a determination that a member violated a legal duty, e.g., to guarantee a "Republican form of government" and disqualify him/her from holding office. The issue here is neither speech nor debate, but rather the lack of an investigation. If the court finds that such an investigation was required, but not performed, that is nonfeasance in office, not speech or debate. Congress would not dare to seat a member if a federal court had determined that he/she is not eligible to hold office in Congress.

[C210N]

There is no question that the proper way to go about removal is constitutionally, thru impeachment or within a house of the legislature within their own body.

But, what happens when the system is so corrupted that those remedies are no longer viable?

Imagine if an invading army breached our borders and installed their own congress and POTUS and, yes, even SCOTUS. Now, while imagining that, tell me how the result is currently different.