Posted on 09/01/2023 7:31:03 AM PDT by lowbridge
How intellectually impoverished is the argument that the 14th Amendment prevents Donald Trump from running for president?
So much so, in fact, that a Barack Obama-appointed judge swiftly dismissed a lawsuit from a group arguing the former president shouldn’t be able to appear on the Florida primary ballot because of the events of Jan. 6, 2021.
According to the Palm Beach Post, Judge Robin Rosenberg didn’t rule on whether the 14th Amendment could apply to Trump’s 2024 candidacy.
“Instead, Rosenberg ruled that the plaintiffs, Boynton Beach attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others, lacked ‘standing’ to bring the challenge,” the outlet reported.
“Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Defendant’s qualifications for seeking the Presidency,” the ruling read.
Instead, she said, “the injuries alleged” from the events of Jan. 6, 2021, “are not cognizable and not particular to them” and that “an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual is qualified to hold public office.”
In the ruling, the judge also cited prior precedent, in which plaintiffs weren’t able to keep candidates off the ballot because of their association with Jan. 6.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
I hope that judge CCW’s...................
While I am happy for President Trump for this ruling, more importantly, our jurisprudence system needs to be cleansed of this idea of “Standing”.
The extremely rare occurrence of President Trump winning in an American courtroom.
No it doesn't. It is probably abused at this point, but it is an important limit what court's can waste their time on.
Exactly. Like you, I'm afraid of every time the lack of "standing" is used by a court, it simply becomes easier and easier for them to tell us plebes that our voice doesn't matter.
This is the key passage:
Instead, she said, “the injuries alleged” from the events of Jan. 6, 2021, “are not cognizable and not particular to them” and that “an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual is qualified to hold public office.”
In the ruling, the judge also cited prior precedent, in which plaintiffs weren’t able to keep candidates off the ballot because of their association with Jan. 6.
Standing was used by some disengenuous judges on the challenges to 2020, but it really can properly be a tough bar to cross. The proper standard is used here by the judge. This joker plaintiff could not show a particularized injury. He was walkways dead in the water on standing
Beyond that, the author uses the term “precedent” too loosely. “Precedent” means a court is bound to follow the decisions of another court. The decisions of the state appellate courts are binding only on the trial courts of that state. The decisions of the US district court, the federal trial court, are not binding precedent in the states where they sit. Except on constitutional issues, the decisions of the federal appellate courts are not binding on the state courts. Thus, for example, the unsuccessful effort to keep MTG off the GA ballot on this hokey theory is not “prevent” in this car
Somebody is going to try this gambit in each of the 50 states. It’s lawfare.
90+ more to go.
This is one of MANY suits, and isn’t even one of the criminal suits, where the lefties did judge-shopping.
>> It is probably abused at this point, but it is an important limit what court’s can waste their time on.
I can see the potential for abusing overly liberalized standing, too.
Kids bringing lawsuits against oil companies for harming their future through unproven climate change, for instance.
Or persons totally unrelated to you (say, your neighbor’s kid’s teacher) suing to take your guns away because they’re icky.
etc
I don’t know if this is a “huge win”, but a W is a W so it’s good.
there’s a pending lawsuit, where some underage kids, are suing over global warming/climate change.
As I recall, they were suing based on some alleged constitutional right to a clean safe environment, or some such issues.
And they were suing companies which allegedly were polluting the environment.
I don’t know where that lawsuit stands, but it’s pending.
There are frivolous lawsuits out there.
“While I am happy for President Trump for this ruling, more importantly, our jurisprudence system needs to be cleansed of this idea of “Standing”.”
Same here - if a person is running for President, then EVERY American has ‘standing’, since stolen elections can lead to very bad things, like Open Borders and the Ukraine War.
Anyone can sue...but “standing” keeps it under control.
Friggin’ unbelievable
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.