Like most anti-Trump maneuvers, they often fail. It took the collusion of the media, the political class, the FBI, and the intelligence community to manufacture nonsensical narratives against the former president, which, after their 10,000th try, worked in denying him a second term. The latest attempt to derail Trump comes in the form of a shoddy interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which its supporters claim disqualifies Trump from ever holding elected office again. It’s a crock, but since some supposedly conservative legal scholars have joined the chorus—it’s gained some life in the media. In three states, Arizona, New Hampshire, and Michigan, there are either lawsuits or legal inquiries into whether removing Trump from the ballot would be permissible.
In Florida, legal action to strip Trump from the ballot during its primary was shot down by an Obama-appointed judge who said the plaintiffs had no standing to bring such a lawsuit. The judgment was solely based on the lack of evidence concerning “the injuries alleged” provision. There was no ruling over the 14th Amendment, which means this circus will remain in town for the foreseeable future (via Palm Beach Post):
A federal court judge in Fort Lauderdale on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump's 2024 presidential candidacy under the 14th Amendment.
The lawsuit, filed a week ago, questioned Trump's ability to appear on the Florida presidential primary ballot next year, owing to his alleged role in the Jan. 6 violence at the U.S. Capitol.
In her swift dismissal of the case, Judge Robin Rosenberg, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, did not determine the 14th Amendment's applicability in Trump's case. Instead, Rosenberg ruled that the plaintiffs, Boynton Beach attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others, lacked "standing" to bring the challenge.
"Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Defendant’s qualifications for seeking the Presidency," Rosenberg wrote, adding that "the injuries alleged" from the insurrection on Capitol Hill more than two years ago "are not cognizable and not particular to them."
Rosenberg also added that "an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individualis qualified to hold public office." She noted two prior court rulings against plaintiffs trying to keep candidates off the ballot because they participated in the Jan. 6 violence in Washington, D.C.
We’ll see if similar judgments are rendered. Still, the fact that Trump was never charged with inciting a rebellion or insurrection concerning all the charges against him shows no evidence to support that allegation. Liberal hyperbole is not evidence; neither are feelings or flawed interpretations from rabid anti-Trump legal scholars.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member