Not on this case, IMHO. First, the Standing precedents are going to be HARD to overcome. If Rehnquist did anything right, there is a huge corpus of law requiring absolute and not speculative harm (which this clearly is) before you even get to make your case. Kennedy and even Breyer signed onto most of those. Secondly, you never get to the Constitutional precedents when you can decide on Statutory elements. Diggs-Taylor totally dismissed the Authorizaion of Force arguments which in many other cases has been held to pretty much approve Executive power. So I don't think they get past the Court of Appeals.
The Supremes will still have the opportunity to vote on cert. You basically laid out exactly the same argument I did and the petition for cert by precedent should be denied for standing. But I trust Kennedy and Breyer as far as I can throw them. This case, if the plaintiffs had standing, clearly breaks statute...and I don't trust the Supremes ratio to uphold precedent when it comes to political cases against Bush and Co.
Mrs. Suhks is really PO'd at Gonzales, thinks he's a moron and giving Bush BAD advice.
OMG this MOONBAT on now is a loony.