[Lurking Libertarian]

Could someone please explain to me why an American citizen has “no standing” when an illegally elected POTUS would impact me personally and directly through any legislation that he signs or EO that he puts in place. I do not understand the parsing of language here.

Because that would affect everyone in the country equally, meaning that it could be resolved through the electoral process (as one of my law professors put it, "if everyone has standing, then no one has standing"). Someone with a unique personal stake would have standing (Mitt Romney, for example).

[BigGuy22]

Because that would affect everyone in the country equally...

Yes. And if anyone wants to look further, the controlling precedent on this question is usually taken to be Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a 1992 SCOTUS decision written by Antonin Scalia.

"This Court has consistently held that a plaintiff claiming only a generally available grievance about government, unconnected with a threatened concrete interest of his own, does not state an Article III case or controversy."

[butterdezillion]

AS long as everybody is dead, nobody is dead. I get it.

(puke)

[MWestMom]

Thank you LL. That makes sense.

[ethical]

Heads up people. The judge in this case acknowledged that Jordan had standing. She had standing. Got it? I think this was only the 2nd time in over 100 cases where the judge did that.