After 54 views, this thread is still not getting any posts......
Okay I give..... What is there to post about as this is only a change in the lead plaintiff?
I haven't looked at the pleadings recently. However my initial reaction was that Keyes' case is based on his factual standing as someone else who was deprived of rights in connection with the contest for the office--that worked as long as the case gets started before the contest is over. But that service was dismissed so now what Keyes has is an argument that the guy improperly holds the office--where is the standing?
On the other hand, I take it as a given that any active duty officer who has been ordered to do anything has standing to complain. I don't see those pleadings yet so we don't know what she was ordered to do that she is complaining about--presumably we find that out Monday.
If she hasn't got an order, she still has the argument that she is directly prejudiced by the fact that there is no Commanding Officer in charge under the constitution although I think that is a more difficult case to make--depending on her duty status, her complaints about treaties and avoidance of tort civil claims may just be viewed as "what if" claims.
Maybe it isn't just any military officer who could complain but one who has facts--maybe she does.