Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

Post Reply
User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#1

Post by bob » Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:34 pm

FOX: Utah man suing Ted Cruz claiming he’s not a natural-born citizen:
A Utah man has filed a federal lawsuit against Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, claiming he is not a natural-born citizen and thus, cannot be President of the United States.
The complaint.

The usual: No standing.

H/t: Doc C.!
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28335
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah)

#2

Post by Foggy » Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:40 pm

:doh:
Every locked door has a key. - Emika Chen

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah)

#3

Post by bob » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:41 pm

Wagner appears to be, uhhh, colorful. For fun:

Wagner v. Michie, No. 13–4082 (10th Cir. filed Oct. 18, 2013);
Sancho v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, No. 08-17389 (9th Cir. filed Aug. 24, 2010) (Wagner is also a plaintiff);
Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, 126 Haw. 190 (Haw. Ct. App. 2011);
Wagner v. Flippo, No. 06-15098 (9th Cir. filed June 11, 2007).

Could be different Walter L. Wagner(s), of course.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah)

#4

Post by bob » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:37 pm

Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#5

Post by bob » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:28 pm

Courier-Trib.: Failed ‘birther’ suit against Cruz appealed:
A Utah man became the first to ask the U.S. Supreme Court :dance: to take up a “birther” lawsuit against Ted Cruz that challenges the White House hopeful’s eligibility for office.

The request by Utah attorney :fingerwag: Walter Wagner, who is representing himself in a case thrown out by a trial judge, was placed on the high court’s docket in Washington this week. The justices probably won’t take up the appeal in order to signal that such cases shouldn’t be taken seriously, said Nate Persily, a professor at Stanford Law School.
Yes, Wagner went Sup. Ct. R. 11 and skipped the 10th Cir.; "for completeness": SCOTUS Dkt. No. 15-1243:
Mar 29 2016 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due May 5, 2016)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44468
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#6

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:49 pm

I don't think SCOTUS' refusal to take up the case is a signal that such cases should not be taken seriously. I think SCOTUS will refuse to take it up since it should have gone to the Circuit court.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#7

Post by bob » Wed May 11, 2016 8:24 pm

"For completeness":
SCOTUS wrote:May 10 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 26, 2016.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#8

Post by bob » Tue May 31, 2016 7:19 pm

"For completeness": cert. denied.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34804
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#9

Post by realist » Tue May 31, 2016 7:25 pm

bob wrote:"For completeness": cert. denied.
I'm SHOCKED!!

:rotflmao:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#10

Post by bob » Tue May 31, 2016 7:29 pm

If Apuzzo doesn't press forward with his now-moot ballot challenge, then this will be the one and only Cruz challenge that went all the way to SCOTUS.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#11

Post by bob » Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:41 pm

Huff Po: Supreme Court Won’t Touch This Legal Challenge to Ted Cruz’s ‘Natural Born’ Status:
Yes, that controversy is still alive.

* * *

Wagner appealed in the usual way, but while the case was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit — which has yet to rule — he moved on to the Supreme Court under a rule that allows him to do so if the case is of “imperative public importance.”

Apparently Wagner didn’t meet that high bar.

Reached by phone on Tuesday, Wagner said claims against Cruz on the natural-born question aren’t moot and will have merit for “as long as he’s still alive.” The lawyer noted that presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump could drop dead tomorrow and then Cruz would certainly “be back in the race.”

Cruz’s legal team is due to submit briefs responding to Wagner’s appeal before the 10th Circuit by Thursday. After that, the court could issue a summary ruling upholding the dismissal of the case or decide to hold oral arguments and issue a more substantive ruling at a later date.

* * *

“Basically it’s a cop-out,” Wagner said of some of those rulings [dismissing for lack of standing]. “They don’t like to make decisions if they don’t have to.”

While he awaits a final decision from the Denver-based appeals court, Wagner said he wouldn’t rule out making a second trip to the Supreme Court if he has to.

“Maybe they’ll amend the Constitution in the meanwhile,” Wagner said. “Don’t hold your breath on that one.”
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12379
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#12

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:45 pm

bob wrote:Huff Po: Supreme Court Won’t Touch This Legal Challenge to Ted Cruz’s ‘Natural Born’ Status:
Yes, that controversy is still alive.

* * *

Wagner appealed in the usual way, but while the case was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit — which has yet to rule — he moved on to the Supreme Court under a rule that allows him to do so if the case is of “imperative public importance.”

Apparently Wagner didn’t meet that high bar.

Reached by phone on Tuesday, Wagner said claims against Cruz on the natural-born question aren’t moot and will have merit for “as long as he’s still alive.” The lawyer noted that presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump could drop dead tomorrow and then Cruz would certainly “be back in the race.”

Cruz’s legal team is due to submit briefs responding to Wagner’s appeal before the 10th Circuit by Thursday. After that, the court could issue a summary ruling upholding the dismissal of the case or decide to hold oral arguments and issue a more substantive ruling at a later date.

* * *

“Basically it’s a cop-out,” Wagner said of some of those rulings [dismissing for lack of standing]. “They don’t like to make decisions if they don’t have to.”

While he awaits a final decision from the Denver-based appeals court, Wagner said he wouldn’t rule out making a second trip to the Supreme Court if he has to.

“Maybe they’ll amend the Constitution in the meanwhile,” Wagner said. “Don’t hold your breath on that one.”
Curiously, or really not, that's how courts operate. “They don’t like to make decisions if they don’t have to.” Or that are a waste of time and resources.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#13

Post by bob » Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:47 pm

More fundamentally, the courts did make a decision: they decided they lacked jurisdiction to hear these cases. There's no cop out in determining there's no authority to act.

Because courts acting without authority would be scary.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#14

Post by bob » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:05 pm

"For completeness," the 10th Cir. affirmed the district court's dismissal. (Wagner v. Cruz, No. 16-4044 (10th Cir. Sep. 15, 2016).)

Wagner didn't seek cert. (After the district court had dismissed his suit, Wagner attempted to go straight to SCOTUS, but it blew him off.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9372
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Wagner v. Cruz (D. Utah, SCOTUS)

#15

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:44 pm

Birthers must be heartbroken Donald didn't select Roy Moore for SCOTUS, he'd have fixed this all up bigly.

But maybe Rharon can get another hot petition going.

One thing I totally learned from being here at The Fogbow was really about standing. I didn't know Lujan before this. Thank you Fogbow and Fogbowzers! Birthers learned nothing. It's really not that complicated...
Wagner lacked standing to litigate the claim under the standard set out in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992). In particular, the district court concluded Wagner had not, and could not, allege he was injured in "a personal and individual way" by Senator Cruz's candidacy. See id. at 561. Instead, Wagner's alleged injury was entirely indistinct from the alleged injury to the public at large. See id. at 573-74 ("[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.").
It's like birthers tilt and go into denial when they see this:
We see no valid reason to repeat the district court's cogent, thoughtful analysis of the standing question.
Ridiculous fail, Walter Wagner.
Avatar Photo: Dedicated to Slim by the International Brotherhood of Weasels.
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”