Trump Removed from Maine Primary Ballot

[dblack]

He signed a Law from an incident in schools where the School withheld what it was doing with Gender BS to the parents.

The law stopped the school from meddling in the parents affairs.

Yeah, yeah. My point stands. States can't be trusted any more than the feds can. The more local the better.

 

[Delldude]

States control who appears on their ballots.

This is how it has been rolling in Federal Court. Not looking good at the federal level for your team.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue to get Trump, 77, off the state’s primary ballot.

“At least five additional federal courts have concluded that citizens attempting to disqualify individuals — including former President Trump — from participating in elections or from holding public office based on the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol lacked standing,” Brinkema wrote in her 13-page ruling.

“Plaintiffs have totally failed to demonstrate how their alleged injuries are traceable to the conduct of defendants,” the judge added.

MSN

A federal judge in Nevada, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama, dismissed a lawsuit on Monday that sought to have Donald Trump off the ballot.

Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, faces legal challenges that seek to remove him from the ballot in several states, with two having already barred his name from primary voters' consideration. The lawsuits argue that Trump is ineligible to run under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars officials who have sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution from holding office if they engage in insurrection.
________________________
On Monday U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro dismissed a lawsuit filed by John Anthony Castro, a presidential candidate from Texas that sought to have Trump removed from the ballot in Nevada.
_________________________
According to Navarro, Castro, who has sought lawsuits to remove Trump from the ballot in multiple states under the argument that Trump is ineligible under the "insurrection" clause of the 14th Amendment, lacks standing in the case as he manufactured the conditions that led to the lawsuit, citing his bid to the presidency.

"In rejecting his political competitor's standing argument, courts have found that Castro improperly manufactured his standing merely to file this lawsuit," Navarro wrote, citing evidence that Castro is running for office simply to pursue these lawsuits against Trump.

Obama judge shuts down effort to kick Donald Trump off ballot

A Nevada judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to have Donald Trump off the ballot as he continues to face similar cases in other states.

www.newsweek.com

PROVIDENCE – A federal judge on Monday threw out a lawsuit challenging former President Donald J. Trump’s right to be on the presidential ballot in Rhode Island.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. dismissed the lawsuit brought by write-in Republican presidential candidate John Anthony Castro, of Texas, based on a 1st Circuit Court Appeals ruling on Nov. 21 concluding that Castro lacked standing in a nearly identical case in New Hampshire.

The court found that Castro failed to show he was a “direct and current competitor at the time that he filed his complaint,” and that as a result, he could not establish that he would suffer an injury-in-fact if Trump remained on the ballot.

Suit by Republican challenger to keep Trump off the ballot in RI dismissed. What comes next?

Castro's lawsuit in RI argued Trump is not eligible for next year's primary ballot because the 14th amendment disqualified anyone engaged in insurrection.

www.providencejournal.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is how it has been rolling in Federal Court. Not looking good at the federal level for your team.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue to get Trump, 77, off the state’s primary ballot.

“At least five additional federal courts have concluded that citizens attempting to disqualify individuals — including former President Trump — from participating in elections or from holding public office based on the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol lacked standing,” Brinkema wrote in her 13-page ruling.

“Plaintiffs have totally failed to demonstrate how their alleged injuries are traceable to the conduct of defendants,” the judge added.

MSN

A federal judge in Nevada, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama, dismissed a lawsuit on Monday that sought to have Donald Trump off the ballot.

Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, faces legal challenges that seek to remove him from the ballot in several states, with two having already barred his name from primary voters' consideration. The lawsuits argue that Trump is ineligible to run under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars officials who have sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution from holding office if they engage in insurrection.
________________________
On Monday U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro dismissed a lawsuit filed by John Anthony Castro, a presidential candidate from Texas that sought to have Trump removed from the ballot in Nevada.
_________________________
According to Navarro, Castro, who has sought lawsuits to remove Trump from the ballot in multiple states under the argument that Trump is ineligible under the "insurrection" clause of the 14th Amendment, lacks standing in the case as he manufactured the conditions that led to the lawsuit, citing his bid to the presidency.

"In rejecting his political competitor's standing argument, courts have found that Castro improperly manufactured his standing merely to file this lawsuit," Navarro wrote, citing evidence that Castro is running for office simply to pursue these lawsuits against Trump.

Obama judge shuts down effort to kick Donald Trump off ballot

A Nevada judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to have Donald Trump off the ballot as he continues to face similar cases in other states.

www.newsweek.com

PROVIDENCE – A federal judge on Monday threw out a lawsuit challenging former President Donald J. Trump’s right to be on the presidential ballot in Rhode Island.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. dismissed the lawsuit brought by write-in Republican presidential candidate John Anthony Castro, of Texas, based on a 1st Circuit Court Appeals ruling on Nov. 21 concluding that Castro lacked standing in a nearly identical case in New Hampshire.

The court found that Castro failed to show he was a “direct and current competitor at the time that he filed his complaint,” and that as a result, he could not establish that he would suffer an injury-in-fact if Trump remained on the ballot.

Suit by Republican challenger to keep Trump off the ballot in RI dismissed. What comes next?

Castro's lawsuit in RI argued Trump is not eligible for next year's primary ballot because the 14th amendment disqualified anyone engaged in insurrection.

www.providencejournal.com

Oops, Maine's action is not result of a lawsuit.

And if you actually read your own copy/paste, you will see those rulings do NOT say citizens have no standing to sue, in general.

Your claim is false.

Naturally.

 

[Delldude]

Oops, Maine's action is not result of a lawsuit.

It has resulted in a lawsuit.

And if you actually read your own copy/paste, you will see those rulings do NOT say citizens have no standing to sue, in general.

It says the citizens who have filed have shown no legal standing. They didn't even bother to look at the 14th claim.....your clowns can't get beyond proving they have legal standing.

The precedent has been set.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It has resulted in a lawsuit.

But was not the result of a lawsuit. Decision by Sec State.

It says the citizens who have filed have shown no legal standing.

In those particular lawsuits, and those particular citizens. What is does not say is that citizens do not have standing.

 

[Delldude]

But was not the result of a lawsuit. Decision by Sec State.

True, but her decision has resulted is several lawsuits, now at the federal level.....Also, it was withdrawn, pending review by SCOTUS. She knows she went too far.

What is does not say is that citizens do not have standing.

What it says is those citizens, involved with those lawsuits, have not demonstrated legal standing.

Going forward, I seriously doubt if anyone will.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

True, but her decision has resulted is several lawsuits, now at the federal level

Which will have nothing to do with standing. The Sec of State has the standing to do her job.

She even stayed her own decision to soothe the cult monkeys. She did that out of courtesy.

 

[Delldude]

Which will have nothing to do with standing.

It will have everything to do with standing at the federal level. Get over it, no one can demonstrate having legal standing in federal court.

The Sec of State has the standing to do her job.

LOL............talk about clueless.

She even stayed her own decision to soothe the cult monkeys.

Stayed after legal consultation telling her she's going to get shellacked the the federal level.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It will have everything to do with standing at the federal level

No it will not. It's part of her job description.

 

[Delldude]

No it will not. It's part of her job description.

So how, before a federal court, will she show how Trump being on the ballot will affect her citizens if He is elected?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So how, before a federal court, will she show how Trump being on the ballot will affect her citizens if He is elected?

That’s not the standard. That has to do with the future and isn’t relevant.

She would have to show that he engaged in insurrection and therefore constitutionally disqualified from office.

WW

 

[Delldude]

That’s not the standard. That has to do with the future and isn’t relevant.

Nope.............that is what having standing is all about.....future issues.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[WorldWatcher]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf

If you want an interesting read, try this.

It's 25 Historians talking about the history of the 14th Amendment and whether the President falls under Section 3 as an "officer" of the United States.

Some are trying to protect FPOTUS#45 by saying he's not an "officer". But yet the founders of the Constitution (those that drafted and implemented the 14th) absolutely considered the Office of the President to be subject to A14S3.

WW

 

[Delldude]

What you going to do if SCOTUS doesn't consider the 14th?

 

[Delldude]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf

If you want an interesting read, try this.

It's 25 Historians talking about the history of the 14th Amendment and whether the President falls under Section 3 as an "officer" of the United States.

Some are trying to protect FPOTUS#45 by saying he's not an "officer". But yet the founders of the Constitution (those that drafted and implemented the 14th) absolutely considered the Office of the President to be subject to A14S3.

WW

Then there's the sticky about insurrection......DOA

And those 25 historians DMD......it's going to come to 9 that count.

 

[Synthaholic]

What you going to do if SCOTUS doesn't consider the 14th?

Beat him by even more than 8 million votes.

 

[Synthaholic]

What you going to do if SCOTUS doesn't consider the 14th?

Right now, Republican governors are telling America that SCOTUS decisions can be ignored.

 

[Faun]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf

If you want an interesting read, try this.

It's 25 Historians talking about the history of the 14th Amendment and whether the President falls under Section 3 as an "officer" of the United States.

Some are trying to protect FPOTUS#45 by saying he's not an "officer". But yet the founders of the Constitution (those that drafted and implemented the 14th) absolutely considered the Office of the President to be subject to A14S3.

WW

Pretty nutty to assert an individual involved in an insurrection is not allowed to be an elector for president; but is still eligible to be president.

 

[Delldude]

Right now, Republican governors are telling America that SCOTUS decisions can be ignored.

Nice spin.

Beat him by even more than 8 million votes.

Heard they're doing ballot box stuffing trial runs as we speak.....