I did read it again. The judge noted that ‘Keyes received less than one percent of the vote...’ in the context of repeating the argument of the defense. He then discussed why that was a problem.
On page 15, line 11, the Judge notes:
“The Court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing tochallenge a major party candidate’s qualifications, while the opposing major party candidatemay be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election. Defendants’ argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is adominantly two-party political system and would require the Court to pass judgment thatPlaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make adifference. This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate canhave on the presidential election.”
Regarding my statement that “...only Congress has standing...” was a summary and analysis of what the Judge said. You are correct that he didn’t say that. What I summarized is found on page 24:
“However, on the day that President Obama took thepresidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal ofhim from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for theremoval of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in theTwenty-Fifth Amendment.”
And he continues: "If the Court accepts this concept of injury, then all candidates would have standing to sue the President on the basis that they were all injured by having to compete against him in the national election," a concept that Judge Carter seemed to have dismissed earlier when he noted, "At the same time, if every candidate has standing to challenge an opposing candidate, would that include write-in candidates who receive minimal votes? Where to draw the line between which political candidates have standing and which candidates do not have standing to challenge their opposing candidates’ qualifications is an amorphous determination that would need to take into account, at the very least, the number of states in which the candidate was on the ballot."
It's obvious that Judge Carter realizes that there is a fine line between viable third party candidates like Ross Perot and joke third party candidates like Alan Keyes. He also realizes that not all have standing, nor should they. He ruled Keyes did not.
What I summarized is found on page 24...
Which is a long way from saying that the Congress has standing to sue in a civil proceeding like this one.