Greenwald's recent piece on the subject is a good place to see it.

His major point is the Sixth Circuit's decision was correct, the claimant had no standing and giving courts the right to hear cases where clear standing is lacking is simply too dangerous.

Too dangerous even when the final outcome is that the administration will be able to engage in illegal conduct and, as long as they do it surreptitiously, never to be forced to answer for it in courts.

Strange calculation to an outside observer. Very strange.

For example Europeans would argue that in their systems the courts have been widely open for many decades (very relaxed, to no standing requirements) and nothing bad has ever happened. We counter by pointing out that:

a) European judiciaries are entirely professional while we here are anything but with the result that many benches in this country are occupied by certifiable yahoos and wackos and you don't want them to pronounce on matters of national importance,

and

b) the present state of European judiciary is a relatively recent democratic development, while ours is a 200 years old basically feudal British system that changed very little in the intervening centuries other than to acquire more powers and perks. The entire "culture" of our system is still very much that of medieval overlords as arrogant and overbearing as they've ever been, no present day European/British democratic airs evident anywhere on these shores.

So to Greenwald the idea of giving our judiciary still more powers is simply not acceptable, he fears them too much.

While I basically share his fears, I fail to see much danger in this specific case for nobody argues for changing standing criteria across the board.

What is called for is the ability for certain people/institutions to bring questions of national/constitutional importance before a special court or tribunal to decide. Such powers need be limited, say, to the President so he can defend himself from overreaching Congress and to a group of senators (10 at least) so they can ask courts to pronounce on legality/constitutionality of anything the administration does.

This arrangement has been standard in European coutries for decades to their great benefit, we have nothing similar with the result that  administrations can engage in illegal behavior and nobody, but nobody can do anything about it.