Which is fortunate since he has none. The denial of standing isn't something to celebrate. And it's lazy crutch. They teach that in law school:
"Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case--or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court --, the requirements for standing are tightened."
Which is fortunate since he has none. The denial of standing isn’t something to celebrate. And it’s lazy crutch. They teach that in law school:
“Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case—or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court —, the requirements for standing are tightened.”
link to source
Judges don’t like to be reversed on appeal and the very first thing that any defendant’s attorney submits in any civil lawsuit is a motion to dismiss. That’s law school 101.
Not one Obama eligibility lawsuit has been reversed on appeal and ordered to grant standing to any plaintiff.
Finally, not every Obama eligibility lawsuit has been dismissed on Article III standing grounds. Some have been dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Meaning the Courts have no jurisdiction to reverse the outcome of a national election.