[GoLightly]

According to the ruling, Berg’s case failed to prove he’d be harmed if his claims in the suit were correct. We’re talking about a very fine point of Constitutional law (who has standing & can prove harm, the public or the candidates who should rightfully have been the party’s nominee?) There are a few other cases chasing this same issue. SCOTUS may wait until one of those other cases have a ruling, so they can claim they had to take it, because the issue was “ripe”. SCOTUS generally prefers to take on the cases that have opposing rulings out of the Appellate Courts.

[FreedomCalls]

SCOTUS generally prefers to take on the cases that have opposing rulings out of the Appellate Courts.

How did Judge Barlow rule in the New Jersey decision about Barry Goldwater being a natural-born citizen in 1964? That suit had standing and was decided was it not?

[Prophet in the wilderness]

So ? .. after this ruling, and what the judge said, the only 2 people who have standing is Hillary Clinton, and John McCain ??

[gulf1609]

Wouldn’t a better “harm” in the case be the possible disenfranchisement of Berg’s vote? If Obama is not eligible to be POTUS and Berg is a Democrat, isn’t there a chance his vote and others would be null and void if after the election Obama is disqualified. Possible vote disefranchisement should give Berg standing before the election.Congress can make new laws later.

[magooey]

Any G. I. Joe in the military should have standing to be assured of the President's proper qualifications. Otherwise, how can a soldier know he is being given orders from a legally formed chain of command?

The President is the Commander in Chief. If he is ineligible, then his orders may not be legal.