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.
Judge Carter said nothing like that at all and your reply is disingenuous. You have taken his quotes out of context. When you quote Judge Carter as saying, "Where to draw the line..." he is setting up the question, not providing an answer. He then proceeds to answer the question by noting that the Court is troubled by the very act of drawing lines.
Which is just the opposite of what you implied by taking the quotes out of context.
The quote you provided: "... then all candidates would have standing to sue the President..." is immediately followed by the sentence from Judge Carter: "Because the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement...", which is an indication that Keyes DID meet this aspect of standing (or at least it was never rejected, as you assert). Judge Carter then explores the possibility of what the court can do about the injury (and determines that the court does not have jurisdiction to do anything).
Which is a long way from saying that the Congress has standing to sue in a civil proceeding like this one.
Which is nothing like I said. I never made mention that Congress would take this action to a civil proceeding.