They have also declined to do so many times on the grounds I've pointed out.
Not every law-related complaint is justiciable, not just anyone can have standing, and there are some things that are the exclusive powers of the other two branches. The court can no more force the President to declare Israel a terrorist state than it can force Congress to declare war.
Except what they ask for is beyond the power of the courts to grant.
It's enforceable by Congress through their oversight and impeachment powers.
I don't think that works. You'd still have a situation where the plaintiffs are asking the court to decide US foreign and defense policy.
Which US laws are you talking about?
I'm referring to the lawsuit itself. It may be "very real", but it's also complete nonsense.
US courts don't rule on political questions, nor do they decide US foreign policy, nor do they provide advisory opinions. This lawsuit fails to state a cognizable claim and seeks relief that is beyond the power of the judiciary to grant.
Even in 2016 it was obvious what kind of person he was. His "good" supporters claimed that being President would change him for the better. We all knew then that they were wrong. We all know now that they were lying.
Well, let's see, the lawsuit was filed in the United States, in a US court, and under US laws.
So, obviously, I'm talking about Outer Mongolia.
That's not how the courts work here.
sigh I don't know what else to say and I'm done wasting my time. Your political belief is that Israel ought to be declared a terrorist state? Fine. But that doesn't change my legal analysis that this lawsuit is DOA.