Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Nero Germanicus

After the first hundred versions of “Standing Denied” (A Ridiculous notion in and of itself) they should have gotten a clue.


514 posted on 04/10/2013 1:54:55 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

I agree that they should have gotten a clue. The first thing any judge is going to look for in ruling on standing in a ballot challenge or an eligibility challenge is are the other candidates who were denied the office challenging the winner. When judges see that the other candidates are not plaintiffs, it makes it easy to rule for the defendant on lack of standing. No plaintiffs named McCain, Palin, Romney or Ryan; no Republican National Committee suing on their behalf; no Libertarian Party, no Constitution Party, no Green Party, no independent candidates and no other political parties challenging eligibility is like no spouse filing for divorce but only friends of the spouse trying to secure a divorce on her or his behalf. Friends don’t have standing. They aren’t the injured party.
One opposing party candidate filed suit, Alan Keyes of the American Independent Party and he was only on the ballot in four states.


515 posted on 04/10/2013 8:20:19 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson