Standing seems to be something that needs to be addressed separately, as it is not in the Constitution. Surely citizens who are affected by tyranny have standing.
Standing is one of the things that just suddenly appeared in the legal scene, it's not even all that new (IIRC less than a hundred years).
The ostensible purpose of standing is to weed out spurious legal claims, but as you see it's an indispensable tool for judicial-tyrants. Remember the USSC's ruling on the Proposition 8 case? In that the CA supreme court had certified the standing of the people of CA for the case, which the USSC invalidated as "not having standing" — now, you might be tempted to say "the supremem court CAN overturn decisions", but this isn't a decision we're talking about but 'standing'.
I suspect that the origin of standing is tied, somehow, to the shift from Constitutional law to Case Law; much of what's wrong with our current jurisprudence stems from that because in elevating case law to the level of the Constitution, the make case law superior to the Constitution if they will it. (After all, isn't the court's job to resolve the problem when two seemingly equal laws conflict?)