A district judge can only hear the case that is brought before him and must conform to prior rulings by the Supreme Court and the appellate court in his circuit. Given the constraints of our judicial system, Judge Carter issued a logical, reasoned and well written decision.
In his decision, he did concede that the actual third party candidates may have standing but could not meet the redressability requirements as the requested remedy of removal of a sitting president could only be provided by congress.
Since Congress is not going to and should not impeach a sitting president based on suspicion, the question is how do you get the evidence.
I believe that presidential candidates qualify for federal matching funds and in some jurisdictions position on ballots based on the electoral results. If Keyes, Drake, Lightfoot or any other candidate brought a case in this same court against the appropriate federal agency dealing with these issues contending that they were deprived of the necessary ballot support due to the existence of a privately funded ineligible candidate and requesting relief in the form of monetary damages and future ballot position, they may actually get a hearing. Since eligibility of Mr. Oboma would be the key, they may be allowed to subpoena his birth record and other evidence and the constitutional question of “natural born citizen” could legitimately be addressed by the court. If they were to win the case, congress would then have a legitimate basis for impeachment.
In any event, to have any chance in a court, the issue must be presented on a legal basis, not an emotional or political one.
From what I read cursorily of the opinion, Keyes and the other candidate-plaintiffs came closer to standing than any of the others; however, that was knocked out becaue of the timing of the filing of the brief, i.e., after BHO was no longer a candidate or even president-elect, but had already been sworn in. I have to read it more carefully.