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.
Hmmm, that is very interesting. I have been feeling rather shaky about Gonzales for a while now.
Well, me too. But they'd have to overrule 20 years of standings cases to get there. Breyer might under his "international law" construct, but I don't think Kennedy will go that far. Even if they got cert, and even if the five want to go with Ms. Diggs-Taylor, Kennedy will concur with a "standings" majority to reverse and remand. Gonzales is OK, but clearly an affirmative action hire. Starr would have been a LOT better, although I question whether he'd get through the Senate. The guy WAS a moonbat...although I've heard that phony "cyclical" or "pendulum" Presidency argument made by folks like David Gergle(sic)...