[Lurking Libertarian]

It would be interesting in this case for a judge to explain exactly ‘Who’ has standing. Then too, I wonder how many laws are written wherein no one has standing to sue. Maybe it is just the Constitution in which no one can have standing!

The rule that the Supreme Court has followed since at least the 1920s is, essentially, that if everyone has standing, no one has standing-- if the allegedly-illegal act affects everyone in the whole country, it is up to the elected branches of government to fix it. That is why no court ever ruled on any of the myriad challenges to the constitutionality of the Vietnam War, for example.

[K-oneTexas]

The problem is ... that no branch of government is willing to correct this wrong. Therefore three branches of government are ‘do nothings’!

[jamese777]

It would be interesting in this case for a judge to explain exactly ‘Who’ has standing. Then too, I wonder how many laws are written wherein no one has standing to sue. Maybe it is just the Constitution in which no one can have standing!
The rule that the Supreme Court has followed since at least the 1920s is, essentially, that if everyone has standing, no one has standing— if the allegedly-illegal act affects everyone in the whole country, it is up to the elected branches of government to fix it. That is why no court ever ruled on any of the myriad challenges to the constitutionality of the Vietnam War, for example.

---

The one person who would have been the most likely to be granted legal standing to sue Obama on eligibility grounds is the only person who stood a chance of being elected by virtue of being the only other person to receive Electoral College votes and the only person who can show DIRECT injury from Obama becoming president: Senator John Sidney McCain. But he has not chosen to sue, chosen not to become a co-plaintiff in any Obama eligibilty suit and chosen not to even file an amicus brief in support of any of the Obama eligibilty lawsuits (and neither has Sarah Palin).
In his dismissal opinion of the quo warranto claim in Taitz v Obama, US Chief District Court Royce C. Lamberth (a Reagan appointee) pretty much spelled it out for plaintiffs that John McCain would stand a decent chance of overcoming the legal standing hurdle. Judge Lamberth did that without ever mentioning McCain’s name but the implication was clearly there.