Interesting the Cruz attorney didn’t argue the merit of the argument, but rather the standing of those making the complaints.
[Interesting the Cruz attorney didn’t argue the merit of the argument, but rather the standing of those making the complaints.]
Reminds me of the Obama cases. But at least three of the shills running interference for that haven’t been seen around this parts since just after 2012.
Odd, that.......
Trump should have standing, and stated months ago that he'd be doing everyone a big favor if he'd sue Cruz over his eligibility.
No, it’s not even remotely interesting. It’s standard practice.
Just as almost all the court cases about 0bunghole’s non-eligibility were. “No standing” so no discovery, no judging on merits, etc.
It’s always standing that they have these cases dismissed before anyone can actually decide if he’s qualified. Same stalling tactic Obama used to hide his bc.
When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, argue standing.