[justiceseeker93]

But the notion that a citizen of the United States has no standing to bring suit to halt an egregious violation of the Constitution is absurd.

Agreed. Even most absurd when that citizen is a military officer, pledged to uphold the Constitution, who is complaining that his CIC may not be constitutionally qualified to be his CIC.

[AmericanVictory]

In Hollister v. Soetoro the judge below found that he had subject matter jurisdiction, and thus necessarily implicitly found standing, and then dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Rule 12(b)(6) does not apply to lack of standing. The plaintiff is a member of the individual ready reserved and sued under the Federal Interpleader Act.

[jbjd]

You don’t get it. None of the lawyers for these military plaintiffs brought a good case. Indeed; one of the lawyers claimed she was trying to get a superior officer to guarantee the military plaintiff would not face discipline for bringing the case! But unless a plaintiff is actually facing discipline, there is no issue for the courts to adjudicate, that is, there is no “case” or “controversy.” The cases should have been brought under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, which allows Plaintiffs to petition the federal court for what otherwise looks like an advisory opinion, which under normal circumstances is outside of the jurisdiction of the federal court. But in this case, using this cause of action, the Plaintiff military person was saying to the court, ‘I need you to rule on my question now, while I am a Plaintiff, because without a ruling, I could take action which could make me a Defendant in a subsequent case.’ (This is all explained on my blog.)