That is not a ruling on standing.
The issue before the Florida Supreme Court was should the plaintiffs be granted a Writ of Mandamus to compel the lower Florida Appeals Court to reconsider the plaintiffs’ claim that Obama is ineligible due to his not being a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court denied the Writ of Mandamus on the grounds that the plaintiffs were not legally entitled to the Writ.
The Supreme Court did not deny the Writ of Mandamus because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.
"Standing to sue" is defined as the one who has the right to relief in court. What this means is that the person who is suing the other person in court has a claim against that other person. A simple example would be where one person might be injured as a result of an automobile accident, but another person attempts to sue for those injuries. This other person clearly lacks standing to sue because he or she has no right to that relief in court.
link to definition
This court said the plaintiffs didn't clearly prove a legal right to relief, which is the same as not proving they have standing. Why is it so hard for you to admit this??