Why was fatally flawed? Please explain.
I agree the concept of Standing limits ones right to redress pursuant to Bill of Rights. In the Kerchner case, however, there were no actual present damages at the time of filing and a political issue argument was raised by suing the entire congress.
It was asking for too much to ask SCOTUS to set a precedent allowing a plaintiff without present actual damages to sue former VP Cheney and the entire US congress.
If SCOTUS had taken the case and ruled for the plaintiff, it would have set a precedent allowing even a plaintiff without actual present damages to sue the entire congress regarding any acts perceived to cause future damages.
If SCOTUS had taken the case and ruled for the defendant, then whether stated or not it would have been construed by bo as a ruling abrogating the Qualification Clause of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.
Thus, the Kerchner case was a no-win situation for SCOTUS and the Rule of Law.
Name 1 SCOTUS case where a Writ of Certiorari was granted to a plaintiff with less standing than Kerchner?
Did Kerchner even present his psychiatric records to prove his emotional distress?
If Kerchner did not present his psychiatric records to the court, how did he expect any court to recognize that he had any damages at all?
How did he expect the Supreme Court of the United States of America to grant a Writ of Certiorari in a case where there was no proof of any damages at all?