On November 21, the First Circuit issued an opinion in Castro v Scanlan, 23-1902. Here is the opinion. It says that John Anthony Castro, the Republican presidential candidate from Texas who has been suing to keep former President Donald Trump off various Republican primary ballots, does not have standing.
The decision says that Castro hadn’t even filed for the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot when he filed his lawsuit on September 5. Of course, no one had filed for that primary yet. But the decision then says that even if Castro had filed, he still wouldn’t have standing because his campaign in New Hampshire is so weak.
The decision is by Judge David J. Barron, an Obama appointee. It is also signed by Judges Gustavo Gelpi and Lara Montecalvo, who are Biden appointees. It does not express any opinion about other issues in cases like this. The U.S. District Court had also found that Castro lacked standing, and in addition the U.S. District Court said these type of cases are non-justiciable “political questions”, but the First Circuit didn’t settle that issue.
PLAINTIFF MUST BE A CITIZEN/ELECTOR OF THE STATE INVOLVED — TO HAVE *STANDING* ???
https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-leader-geert-wilders-wins-dutch-election-exit-poll/
NETHERLANDS – ANOTHER RIGHTWING EXTREMIST WINNER ???
ANY NOW OLDE NAZIS IN N LAND ???
Excellent news!
Nazis are leftwing, of course, so that has no relevance to the right wing victory in Holland.
So, what does he lack to have standing? How un-weak does his campaign have to be?
Not that I think his case has merit. It’s just that it would be good to know what anyone needs to have standing in this sort of case.
Whatever his majesty the judge says.
Per Walter, I don’t like polling strength being used to determine standing.
There are judges who use logic to apply rights and there are fascist weasels who have judgeships.
The Congress alone has authority to decide if any candidate is qualified to hold office and if presidential Electors ballots have been duly cast. NO ONE has standing to bring suit to keep a candidate off the ballot for any reason other than the three qualifications in the Constitution, for those EVERYONE has standing.
QUALIFICATIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS
Castro should have the right to bring his idiotic lawsuits and have the judge laugh it out of court, regardless of how much or little support he has. The judge is just being lazy in disqualifying it this way, because laughing it out of court might require slightly more work in publishing exactly why it’s idiotic (although the actual work would probably be farmed out to clerks) and, more importantly, could require some miniscule amount of court time that his “honor” would prefer to spend at the golf course or strip club.
>So, what does he lack to have standing? How un-weak does his campaign have to be?
In the district court decision, Castro called no witnesses other than himself and presented no evidence of campaign activity. Specifically:
– He said he had placed yard signs in New Hampshire but, when asked to give the address of even one location where a yard sign had been placed, could not do so.
– He said he had spoken to New Hampshire voters who intended to vote for him but, the court noted, he was unable to provide even one affidavit from a N.H. voter affirming this fact.
– He said he had mailed “thousands” of postcards to New Hampshire voters but didn’t present any evidence that this had actually occurred (i.e. a receipt from a mailing house, a sample of the postcard, etc.).
– He admitted, under questioning, that the purported “$20,000,000” loan he reported to the FEC that he gave to his own campaign never actually happened. And that – as of the date he filed his lawsuit – he had only raised $670 for his presidential campaign, in the form of a donation from himself.
Moreover, the court also found he had self-inflicted an injury in order to sue. This is usually hard to prove that an injury is self-inflicted but – in Castro’s case – it was super-easy. He’s blasted out numerous Tweets in which he’s come right out and said the only reason he’s running is to get standing to sue. The defense just cited his Twitter feed.
So, in other words, to have standing you’d probably need to: (a) NOT publicly, and repeatedly, admit that you are only running in order to sue, (b) pay a college student $500 to staple a couple hundred one-sheets on telephone poles and then sign a performance affidavit, (c) find 2-3 people willing to testify they’re planning to vote for you.
In the district court case, the court noted it didn’t want to get into election prognostication and implied the threshold was probably fairly low, but that Castro hadn’t even met that low, low threshold.
As a hardcore Trump supporter, I’m not interested in defending Castro or his ludicrous lawsuit, but Fantek doesn’t answer the questions he purports to answer. It’s obviously not difficult to show that Castro’s campaign is extremely weak, but that doesn’t tell us exactly how weak it would have to be to lack standing. “Probably need to” and “implied the threshold was probably pretty low” answers the question: there is no exact threshold, thus making it a subjective evaluation solely at the judge’s discretion.
It would have been far better to have a ruling on merits, such as:
J6 was not an armed insurrection
There is no evidence that Trump planned or sanctioned any trespass, vandalism or rioting; on the contrary, he called for peaceful and legal protest, and later called on trespassers to cease and desist
President does not meet the original intent of office under the united States
Or, more fundamentally but admittedly not something any court is at all likely to admit yet:
The 14th amendment was improperly adopted, at odds with the fundamental premises of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and should be declared null and void forthwith.
I’m a Republican now, but I’ve been a third party supporter for much of my life, from George Wallace, John Schmitz, and Lester Maddox to Tom Tancredo, Joe Miller, and Virgil Goode (Trump made me Republican again). Despite a lack of sympathy for Castro and his desperate seeking of fame as a pest on the testicles of President Trump, having been in the trenches of threadbare campaigns, I sympathise with:
Placing yard signs and not knowing any of the addresses;
Speaking to voters who promised support without noting their names, addresses, or phone numbers;
Etc.
That’s not to say that a notable and obvious liar like Castro actually did such things, but a candidate easily could have without being able to satisfy a court with such particulars for evidence.
NOOO MENTION OF *WEAK* VS *STRONG* CANDIDATES AND THEIR ELECTION TIME BUDGETS IN USA CONST
IE – ONE MORE JUNK OP BY A PARTY HACK SO-CALLED JUDGE
For once, we agree. On the other hand, in another thread AZ says that people who disrespect judges are troll morons. Consistency is not his strong suit, unless he’s admitting to being one.
TRUMP IS AN ACTUAL ANTI-DEMOCRACY TYRANT MORON WITH HIS NONSTOP ATTACKS ON ALL JUDGES/COURTS THAT HE DOES NOT OWN/CONTROL.
WAITING FOR TRUMP-IN-JAIL ORDER FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
WILL BIDEN USE A RAID ON JAIL TO FREE TRUMP AS AN EXCUSE FOR MARTIAL LAW ???
@Porcus Agricola
I’d commiserate if these were the requirements needed to appear on the ballot. But that’s not what the court said. These are requirements to stop someone else from appearing on the ballot.
The requirement that you might need something as minimal as being able to identify two or three voters in a statewide election who intend to vote for you to prove the viability of your campaign before you can kneecap your competition is really not unreasonable. It’s probably too kind.
It should be EASY to run for office and DIFFICULT to stop others from doing so.
>It would have been far better to have a ruling on merits, such as: J6 was not an armed insurrection
Maybe, but the courts aren’t in the business of issuing general commentary on current events. The courts respond to specific complaints. And before a complaint can proceed to trial, the plaintiff needs to prove he has standing. The reason there was no ruling on J6 was because there was no trial where evidence could be presented. The reason there was no trial was because the plaintiff couldn’t prove standing. That’s the plaintiff’s fault, not the judge’s.
AZ routinely criticizes and berates judges. He is such a hypocrite.
LEGAL/ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF LEGAL/ILLEGAL COURTS
2 X 2 = 4
ESP OF PARTY HACK APPOINTED COURTS- IE ESP ALL USA COURTS
I have seen AZ in action. I had a court case scheduled after his, must have been 1977 or 78. AZ had some idiotic case and the judge knew that. He quickly threw it out to which AZ called him a moron and went on a rant. Two days in jail for contempt of court for that. While the officer escorted him to the pokey he made a sexual comment to my wife Pat.
Dalton’s story doesn’t surprise me.
AZ is an actual moron. Biden is a tyrant, not Trump. Trump is a patriot, savior, and hero, and our legitimately elected President, unjustly kept out of office for now through treasonous fraud in collusion with a foreign enemy.
Trump justly condemns out biased kangaroo judges running kangaroo court banana republic style show trials against him, based on ridiculous cooked up allegations as a thin excuse to attack him because he’s running for President again and looks set to win. These attacks come from the same derp state-fake news axis of evil as all the prior failed attacks against Trump, these 14-3 inanities, no lube, etc. The judges Trump criticizes are stooges in robes.