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.
The problem with this legal theory is that it overlooks the injury to the general population as the result of the policy decisions of an unqualified man. That those of us in the General population have been injured by Obama is blatantly obvious. I have always regarded the "standing" issue as merely an excuse to allow the courts to avoid an unpleasant issue. (Questioning the legitimacy of the first "Black" president.)
When judges see that the other candidates are not plaintiffs, it makes it easy to rule for the defendant on lack of standing.
It gives them a procedural excuse to avoid the issue.
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.
Not the same thing at all. Citizens are indeed injured by the acts of an unqualified man. "Friends" are not injured by the consequences of someone else's divorce.
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.
We the people are not "friends". We are those who will have to pay the bills for whatever this man does. That individual Americans have no interest in the leadership of our nation is nonsense. What this translates to is that the court suborned our interest to a subjective technicality, and therefore should not be granted any respect for having done so.
It all comes back to one simple thing. We should NOT respect the opinions of these courts. They are not administering the law in the best interest of the nation, they are not logically consistent, and they are not interested in discovering the truth. Indeed, they are doing everything they can to obfuscate it.