The problem is that no damages have been identified. Berg has not shown any standing because he hasn't shown where he himself is suffering injury by Obama's candidacy. He has to show how exactly Obama's running has caused him harm. And it has to be concrete; he can't say cite some sort of hypothetical, like it's damaging his faith in the electoral process.
If Berg doesn’t have standing, why didn’t the judge throw the case out?
I'm sure it will be. To date the judge has just ruled on the immediate request and has denied the injunction. That in itself is not a good sign because it shows that the judge is not convinced that Berg is suffering any immediate harm by Obama's actions. The rest of the case is in the preliminary phases.
In Berg’s case, or in my hypothetical class action to stop Hussein, the prospective total “damages” presented by having an ineligible POTUS utterly defy tabulation.
Then by all means persist. Have at it. What's one more frivilous lawsuit in the court system? But don't blame me for the way the legal system works.
I’ve admitted that I’m not an attorney, yet my familiarity with the principles involved(along with common sense) allows me to confidently say you’re wrong.
Your confidence in your admitted lack of knowledge is impressive, to say the least. No doubt when Berg's suit gets tossed, or this suit against McCain gets tossed, you will chalk it up to a corrupt judge and a biased court. And there is nothing that I or anyone else will ever be able to do to convince you otherwise.
The judge has not “denied the injunction”, because that is what the entire suit is about—obtaining an injunction against Obama’s candidacy. The judge HAS denied a temporary restraining order.
Berg’s specific standing relates to his being a member of the Democrat party, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Did you even read his complaint? I suspect not. He does, in fact, mention specific damages in the complaint, which I pointed out earlier. You seem to have trouble tracking and/or processing facts.
Unless you try to convince me that you’re a lawyer(or otherwise qualified to pontificate as you have), I’ll just ignore your impertinence.