[David]

Wouldn't the all elusive "standing" need to be found in order to get to discovery in order to determine the claim that they (Barry's SCOTUS picks) are not qualified? That brings the issue right back to where we are now. No?

That's the point of my careful description of how the issue would come up--in each of those cases, the person or party raising the issue would by definition have standing.

[rxsid]

"Wouldn't the all elusive "standing" need to be found in order to get to discovery in order to determine the claim that they (Barry's SCOTUS picks) are not qualified? That brings the issue right back to where we are now. No?"

That's the point of my careful description of how the issue would come up--in each of those cases, the person or party raising the issue would by definition have standing.

----------------------------------------------

Got it. Thanks. Question is, though, would the judge(s) have the courage of conviction to see AND "admit" that the person or party had the textbook definition of standing. I have doubts.