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.
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 The decisions of the US district court, the federal trial court, are not binding precedent in the states where they sit.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.
This is one of MANY suits, and isn’t even one of the criminal suits, where the lefties did judge-shopping.
I don’t know if this is a “huge win”, but a W is a W so it’s good.
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.
small question:
isn’t an accused person have to be CONVICTED before you start denying rights & privileges?
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”.
Is the Supreme Court completely feckless, impotent, and confused?
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.)
Didn’t know that “no standing” thing worked BOTH ways.
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?