As for this particular case, the wording makes me wonder if it was done by someone who is a "English as a 2nd language" type person.
Interestingly, this statement is found in the SCOTUS brief overview:
Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/briefoverview.pdf
Apparently, "we" are all supposed to believe the party line that a question specific to Article II, Section 1 Clause 5 in the CONSTITUTION is something the "judicial" branch can not address. Stunning!
Every petition for Certiorari is docketed and then eventually submitted to a conference.
While the Petition is pending, or before it's filed, the appealing party can move the Court for a stay (for example, in a death penalty appeal, there is always a motion for stay of execution, because the case would otherwise become moot before the conference is held). Those motions for a stay are made to a single justice, who can either grant the stay, deny it, or submit it to the conference.
If the first justice denies the stay, the petitioner can make the same motion to a second justice (who will usually submit it to the full conference, so the petitioner doesn't keep making the motion to all 9 justices).
That is what happened in the cases you are thinking of-- there were motions to stay Obama's inauguration, which were all denied by various justices, sometimes after submission to a conference and sometimes just by the action of the justice to whom the motion was made.
Stunning or just plain nuts? If the *judicial* branch can't (or won't) address it, then WHO CAN?
When I hear that someone has *no standing* that translates to me that the person bringing the case isn't important enough to have it heard.