[traderrob6]

OK let me rephrase....NOBODY HAS STANDING UNTILL AFTER HE’S IN....PERIOD.

[DannyTN]

"OK let me rephrase....NOBODY HAS STANDING UNTILL AFTER HE’S IN....PERIOD.:"

I'm not certain of that, but it did seem that way with Obama. However it also seemed nobody had standing after Obama was in. So I say we go back to court in every way possible and challenge this until there is a federal and probably SCOTUS court ruling one way or another.

I don't think the courts can say nobody has standing until after the election given some of the after election Obama rulings. I think a case can be made that with Obama nobody has standing ever, and therefore the courts should allow challenges prior to the ballot finalization and/or prior to the elections.

[MMaschin]

OK let me rephrase....NOBODY HAS STANDING UNTILL AFTER HE’S IN....PERIOD.


Correct. And after he's in, the issue become in legal parlance "moot". That means that the court will not address it, because they determine that there is nothing they can do to correct the situation.


That is what the courts did with Obama. The liberal judges did so because they didn't want to hurt Obama, and the conservative judges did because they were afraid of being called 'racist'. Neither of these will apply to Cruz. I expect that plenty of judges will take up this issue. And a number of liberal judges will determine Cruz to be ineligible.