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 ...
If an obozo judge ruled he ruled for his side. Period.
Good!
I fear, however, that a block of perhaps 6 States will last minute sue to keep him off ballot, perhaps 8 weeks or so before the election. The goal being, to get the ballots quickly printed, minus the Trump name.
Some lib courtwill grant them temporary removal of name while it works through the courts.
It will fail, of course, but VERY possible a few states “Won’t have enough time, yer honor,” to reprint and distribute in time for election. And the idiot judge will say, well, people will just have to write his name in, but the election will not be delayed.
And boom. Trump legal to run in those states, but name not on the ballot.
I hate that I’ve learned to think like and anticipate Weissman, who is the puppet master behind most of the lawfare against Trump.
(Jack Smith is his protege; Weissman his mentor. And Bragg is led by him, too, and fat Fani.)
Any judge who rules that someone doesn’t have standing, should be required to name an example of someone who does!!
Didn’t know that “no standing” thing worked BOTH ways.
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”?
My question exactly.
IMO There is something seriously wrong when laws make zero sense to a normal intelligent person. You shouldn’t need a law degree to understand basic laws.
The one DA said that merely being accused is enough cause to keep someone off the ballot. It amazes me that someone can get away with that kind of stupid public statement. Sadly, in the right district or state, they are right. In no way do I want the fed to control national elections and take that authority away from individual states, but I do want any decisions of such things to be made at such a time that a candidate has time to challenge them all the way to scotus and have them reversed.
How much time would that require?
He’s a Florida judge - so he probably does. DeSantis just let everybody become a CCW with no need for a permit.
So, if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed runs for President, no one has the right to challenge his qualifications to be POTUS?
I didn’t know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a US citizen.
When did that happen?
Well, yeah. That why the claims certain persons in recent years weren’t eligible to run got nowhere in court. The generalized complaints about standing on this forum notwithstanding, it’s an extremely important governing principle. It’s why if I hear my neighbor was in a terrible accident and I’m upset about it, I don’t have standing to sue for my emotional distress. Nor do my ten coworkers I tell about, who also get upset by hearing the tale
He’s not. That’s the point.
And my response to your anticipated reaction is the conservative one: if the lack of standing in this circumstance is viewed as a problem, then Congress has the ability to pass a law granting standing. If there’s no mechanism in law for accomplishing something we want done, then it just doesn’t get done.
This 14th ammendment nonsense is just that, and whackadoo judge who would rule in favor of it would be struck down on appeal.. it’s a joke of an argument and has no merit. Dems can venue shop all they like. Any ruling they would get will be struck down as there is no way such a ruling would not get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if need be and it would not stand.
This is just attempted election tampering, nothing more.
John Kerry’s daughter is one plaintiff in one of these cases.
Well, he is not a US citizen so a regular Joe might have standing. The Insurrection thing is different.
So we have zero chance of challenging Camel Hair. Just like Obama.
I’m not saying it’s good,
But yes that the way it is
So for once that “lack of standing” factor works in our favor. About time.
<>Really? Well who does have the “standing”?<>
Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce the 14A.
States, prosecutors and no-name lawyers don’t have enforcement standing.
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.