Replies

The appellants have properly put forward their claims, but the federal courts (including SCOTUS to justify granting cert) cannot REACH any claims on eligibility if the plaintiffs cannot establish STANDING.

All that SCOTUS did in refusing certiorari was to let stand the lower court’s denial of standing and in doing so SCOTUS made absolutely NO ruling or expression of opinion on the merits of plaintiffs claims that Obama is ineligible.

The Drake/Keyes case could yet be remanded to the district court for a hearing on the merits. Only after such a hearing, including discovery, could it be concluded that a refusal to grant certiorari would reflect a lack of support from SCOTUS on ineligibility claims, IMO.

Kerchner v Obama was dismissed on standing grounds but not Hollister v Soetoro. Hollister v Soetoro was dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
In other words, the judge denied the legal theory of the lawsuit.
The Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal and the Supreme Court refused to review the appeals court’s decision.
What needs to get to the Supreme Court is an appeal that is not simply asking them to rule on standing or other technical legal deficiencies.
Barnett/Drake/Keyes is another appeal where the issue on appeal (the original jurisdiction court’s reason for dismissal) is standing.

"Kerchner v Obama was dismissed on standing grounds but not Hollister v Soetoro. Hollister v Soetoro was dismissed for 'failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.' In other words, the judge denied the legal theory of the lawsuit."

Incorrect, IMO.

"Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" is simply the definition of "failure to establish redressability," which is an element of standing.

Redressability is only one of three elements a plainfiff must successfully assert to gain standing, so Hollister is also a failure to gain standing and was NOT decided on the merits.

See Wiki: "There are three standing requirements:

"1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

"2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[15]

"3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury."