Speaking as a lawyer admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, I can tell you that there is no procedure under the Court's rules for a case to "be tabled so that [it] may be revisited at he court['s] discretion." Can you show me any citation for your statement?
Dads health is not good now but if you revisit the cases they were not just rejected. I cannot remember the legal term but do know in dads explanation to me that they could be revisited if a later case came up to attach them to. He could only cite from memory one case in which that was done in the past. And it really got his attention At that time I was printing out all the legal decisions for him to read. I certainly didn’t notice anything different but he did! ( BTW he gave a piece of paper to local judge with the Gore decision — what paragraph etc it would be decided on and what the final vote would be. When it was decided he was 100% correct. The judge said if he were twenty years younger he’d nominate him for federal judge. Dad said if he were ten years younger he’d accept)
I do remember a long discussion on when how standing was developed to lighten he judicial case load and the difference between practicing law by quoting other cases and arguing original intent but don’t ask me any legal terms for any of it LOL I just listened and ask questions
It’s the difference in practicing law now and back when he went to law school so he claimed
You would have the expertise and case resources to look that up Please do. Sure wish I remembered the Latin
He said all along that charges should have been filed in criminal court not as lawsuits as no injury had yet taken place therefore there would be no standing — The premise was wrong