Replies

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 The decisions of the US district court, the federal trial court, are not binding precedent in the states where they sit.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