The interview also explains “ripeness” of a case.
bttt
MRS. RONDEAU: That being said, why do you think the lower court dismissed your suit?
ATTY. APUZZO: They said that we have a general grievance about government. Essentially, they used language from other cases which talked about people complaining that some regulatory agency wasnt protecting the environment, wasnt doing something, and that people are just complaining in a general sense that the law is not being respected. And the court says, Well, who are you? We have this environmental problem going on in California, for example, and you live in New Jersey. Whats it to you? I am just giving you an idea of this. So basically, the court says, Well, the injury that youre talking about is a general grievance, and everybody in the whole country has the same grievance if hes not qualified. You dont show me that you have a specific injury, a particularized injury that applies to you, so therefore, Im dismissing this case because its as if the whole country came to court and everyone is complaining about this. Thats not for us; thats for the Congress and for the Executive to deal with.
This is totally inapplicable in our case because were talking about a constitutional standard which is well-defined within the Constitution itself. Theres a lot of argument as to what it means, but the court is well-equipped to finally tell us what it means, so they can make that decision. So again, not everybody sees himself as injured by Mr. Obama; you still have X amount of people who still support him. And even if you prove to these people that hes not qualified to be president, they would vote for him again, because they have a different value.