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 don’t think the little commies should be allowed to have access to ANYTHING involving fossil fuels including anything that was shipped on transportation using fossil fuels. If they are found using gasoline, any petroleum products, food products, electricity or anything they sued for, they should be immediately arrested and their asses thrown in jail for extreme hypocrisy.
Well, not to get into the weeds too much, but,
none of us has a constitutional right to vote in a presidential election in the first place.
Work with me here. The constitution says that state legislatures choose the manner of selecting the electors for president.
Every state chooses electors to the electoral college through a popular vote, but they are not required to do so.
So on the issue of standing, and every American having standing regarding elections, technically speaking, we voters may well not have standing, because we voters don’t have a constitutional right to vote directly for president in the first place. We vote in presidential elections because our state legislatures gave us that right to choose the presidential electors.
So Con Pubbie used the word “cleansed” regarding “standing”.
In that limited context I agree with him. But, “standing” enables tons of bullshit lawsuits that get filed to be summarily dismissed so from that perspective it is good.
Yes, it works against our side sometimes but you are never going to achieve a PERFECT legal system. Maybe AI will let us get the humans out of the system and get us closer to perfect.
That was because the state constitution said people had the right to a clean environment.
The state AG is appealing the decision.
Wow, are you another Mark Levin or something! Anyway, I agree...would an elector have standing, or a state rep?
and you are exactly correct ....
Caplan should be disbarred for bringing the suit in the first place.
He knew it amounted to a frivolous suit and chose to waste the court’s time and to disturb me for no reason but to be a pain in the ass.
Consider the source, Caplan, is a jerk and a nuisance to all.
an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual is qualified to hold public office.”
Really? Well who does have the “standing”?
One down, 999 to go...
That horses ass Caplan should be disbarred for bringing this suit. He obviously has never read the Constitution.
>> our jurisprudence system needs to be cleansed of this idea of “Standing”.
>> No it doesn’t. It is probably abused at this point...
The issue is really judicial activism, and should “standing” go away, another mechanism would be used to achieve a similar form of activism.
If we could point to just one primary contributor of judicial/prosecutorial activism, what would it be?
Thanks for compliment, but no, I don’t have the knowledge of Mark Levin. Anyway, perhaps it would be electors, or state legislators, who would have standing, and not ordinary citizens.
small question:
isn’t an accused person have to be CONVICTED before you start denying rights & privileges?
God help us.
You’re welcome, sounds good!
Hoping this is only the first domino to fall in the course of President Trump coming out victorious in every one of these sleazy cases.
They have to give President Trump a win every once in a blue moon to make all these prosecutions seem “fair”.
My understanding is the won because the state didn't offer a significant defense. Which is a popular greenie strategy in need of fixing more than just 'standing.' Courts shouldn't have standing to act as a legislature of one via rubber stamping non-adversarial consent decries.
Is the Supreme Court completely feckless, impotent, and confused?
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.