[C. Edmund Wright]

wrong dude.....Cruz would be the defendant if there was anyone on the planet with “standing” to be the plaintiff. And there isn’t.

Not even Alan Grayson, tho we’re not sure he is from this planet.

[Political Junkie Too]

Cruz would be the defendant if there was anyone on the planet with "standing" to be the plaintiff. And there isn't.

I once supposed that anyone who donated to a questionable candidate should have standing to sue on the grounds of fraudulent solicitation. The rationale is that if a candidate knows he is ineligible and sets up a contribution structure anyway, how is that any different than someone setting up a fake charity to defraud donors and steal their money?

That is why a donor who is actually harmed by loss of money on fraudulent terms should have standing to sue the candidate to prove his eligibility, and therefore prove that campaign solicitations are not fraudulent.

What do you think of that angle?

-PJ

[gdani]

wrong dude.....Cruz would be the defendant if there was anyone on the planet with “standing” to be the plaintiff. And there isn’t.

Wrong. Not in this type of suit where Cruz would be seeking a declaratory judgment. He would unquestionably be the plaintiff.

[dem bums]

Cruz could be the plaintiff, in certain instances (any instance in which the case involved the declaratory judgment Trump mentioned). If, hypothetically, some county registrar in New Hampshire publicly stated that he did not think Cruz was eligible, and would not count Cruz votes, then (again, hypothetically) Cruz could bring an action seeking a declaratory judgment that he is eligible (and a writ of mandamus ordering the registrar to count his votes).

Trump's legal analysis is (as expected) complete horsecr*p, but he's right that (in certain limited instances, which do not currently exist) Cruz could, theoretically, bring his own action to determine eligibility.