But irrelevant to the comment.
The logical end to the non-stop encroachment of government into the lives of the citizenry by both major political parties is a very different thing from whether or not this judge was correct in this ruling.
Standing is a very well defined judicial concept. To make the claim that a correct application of the concept is fascism because it doesn't produce the results you want isn't a very convincing argument.
Indeed it is. Foreign terrorists and illegal aliens have standing. American citizens, presidential candidates, and military personnel do not.
The only result I want is to have 0bama produce his long form birth certificate. Beyond that, if the courts choose to ignore their own previously stated definition of natural born citizen, then I guess it's their business. I want to know who the president is, because he most certainly is not who he says he is.
I really don't care if the judges ruling is correct or not, because it's quite obvious that no court and no judge anywhere in this country is going to do one damned thing about the fraud in the white house.
What I do care about is what I said earlier.
Let us all bid welcome to the Fourth Reich.
The concept is well defined, but the rules seem to be constantly changing. Generally in the direction of "no standing" for those whose interest, real though it is, is general rather than specific. It wasn't always that way.
They find "standing" for non-citizen, non-resident, aliens captured on the battlefield, but not for US citizens wishing to see that the Constitution be enforced?
That sticks in a lot of craws. Mine included.