Worse it would establish the legal precedent that every time congress felt wronged by a veto, they had standing to sue. Every time one house of congress didn't pass a bill the other house did, they could sue. Any time anyone didn't get what they wanted or passed, they have standing to sue.
An awful lot of layers could make an awful lot of money, but all the cases get rejected eventually.
“Any time anyone didn’t get what they wanted or passed, they have standing to sue.”
So be it and let them. Just more gridlock. But I don’t think
you could say a case against the Obama would be frivolous.
There are definitely grounds to do so. Grounds for
impeachment to. The problem lies is when they loose. If
anything, a precedent will be set by the media and the rest
of the tards. The backlash could be worse.
On the other hand how would it matter anyway? It’s not like
they vote on bills just once. Sometimes they continue to
to push, introduce and vote for the same bill for decades
so I don’t see how a standing to sue would make much difference.