[Lurking Libertarian]

How can they the court claim that this is a frivolous suit with out providing evidence to the contrary?

Because of long-standing precedent that says that civilian courts have no jurisdiction to review militray orders.

[Sibre Fan]

How can they the court claim that this is a frivolous suit with out providing evidence to the contrary?
---
Because of long-standing precedent that says that civilian courts have no jurisdiction to review military orders.

And because, as the Court explained (page 5-6:
"Remarkably, in her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not even attempt to distinguish the legal precedent cited by the Court in its order of dismissal. She simply repeats the same bare and conclusory allegations that the Court found frivolous in its previous order. A motion for reconsideration that does not even address the legal basis for the Court’s previous order is frivolous."