Does "The judge also said the plaintiff, Markham Robinson, chairman of the American Independent Party, had no standing to file the lawsuit because he is not a candidate for president." indicate that the pending lawsuit against Obama could be tabled/thrown out for lack of standing?
It’s not my area of expertise, but a couple of points:
The SF Court seemes to have ruled on the main issue, and did not dismiss the case based on lack of standing. So, the ‘standing issue’ part of the decision would be appear to be dicta.
Not only is dicta not binding, but the SF court’s decision is not binding on the Philly court.
Of course, it may be that the judge’s dicta was correct, in which case lack of standing may be grounds to dismiss Berg’s suit if the legal reasoning is sound, and the applicable law specifies that only the opponent may file such a suit.
No legal expert here, but I ran across this article on the subject by Jonathan Turley. I don't agree with his concluding suggestion, but it covers the issue from the standpoint of a constitutional lawyer, and explains the judge's action:
"[...] The problem is that such an issue is only “ripe” for review after a general election and before the swearing in ceremony. While it is conceivable that a ballot challenge (contesting the eligibility to be on a ballot) is possible, a court could deny any pre-election lawsuit as an impermissible request for an “advisory opinion.”Link
Any review would turn on a difficult interpretive question. Two obvious meanings are possible. The Court could view the term as referencing a purely territorial qualification: people born within our borders. The Court could also view the meaning as encompassing a parentage meaning: covering people born to citizens regardless of the place of their birth. The latter interpretation would make natural born status as synonymous with citizenship and the colloquial term “native son.”
[...] Absent a constitutional amendment, the issue will remain one of constitutional construction, not legislative correction."