Then what did Judge Carter mean by this?
"In this case, it does seem highly unlikely that the replacement of President Obama with another Democratic nominee such as Hillary Clinton would have resulted in a victory for Plaintiffs Keyes, Drake, or Lightfoot of the American Independent Party. However, creating a dividing line for standing according to chance of success in political elections is, by the nature of our political system, an especially difficult determination because political elections lack predictability and can be greatly affected by a single speech or action of a candidate. At the same time, perhaps it is precisely this unpredictability of political elections that makes the claim of a third party candidate, who received less than one percent of the popular vote in the 2008 national election that did take place, too speculative to establish standing."
So where is that out of context?
He then proceeds to answer the question by noting that the Court is troubled by the very act of drawing lines.
But he had already drawn the line when he ruled Keyes did not have standing to sue, and by citing the ridiculous notion that his chances of victory were in any way diminished should Obama have been ineligible.
You have to read the entire section! You are quoting the question that he is setting up, but you are portraying it as the answer. Try reading your part and then the following paragraphs...which contain the Judge's opinion about the question that he set up.