[Lurking Libertarian]

While the 3rd Circuit Panel references Article III requirements, they also agreed with the lower court that there is a requirement for the injury to be “concrete and particularized” and referenced the fact that “the Court has refrained from adjudicating ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’ which amount to ‘generalized grievances,’ pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.”

All of those requirements were derived by the Supreme Court, in a series of cases starting back in the 1920s, as an attempt to define the words "Cases and Contoversies" in Article III. In other words, if something is an "abstract question" or a "generalized grievance" then, according to the Supreme Court, it is not a "case or controversy."

[jdirt]

Please comment on whether it may be possible to sue the Supreme Court for not doing their job.

Are they the only branch of government that cannot be held accountable for shirking their responsibility that would not rise to the level of impeachment?

Justice Clarence Thomas testified under oath that they were “avoiding” the issue of who is eligible to be President.

Who would hear the case—you take it to federal court. The publicity alone may bring atention to the issue.

If a guy that may die if ordered to go to war doesn’t have standing, I don’t know who does. If that is not a particular injury, I don’t know what is.

Perhaps the estate of a fallen soldier may have standing??