return a verdict for the nonmoving party, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.
Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . .  Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87.
B.   NEWDOW LACKS ARTICLE III STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE RECITATION OF A PRAYER AT THE INAUGURATION.
1.   Newdow Fails To Meet The First Test For Standing Because He Has Not Suffered An Injury In Fact.
Article III, §2 of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to the decision of "cases or controversies."  Federal courts presume the lack of jurisdiction "unless 'the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.'" Renzie v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316 (1991).
The pleadings and the record must be examined to determine the nature of the dispute and the interests of the parties in having this matter resolved in this court. Renne, Id.
A legal action brought by an individual who lacks standing does not qualify as an Article III "case or controversy," and federal courts have no power to decide it.  Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64-65, 67 (1997). Thus, "[s]tanding is a threshold question in every federal case because if the litigants do not have standing to raise their claims the court is without authority to consider the merits of the action."  Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Zieike, 845 P.2d 1463, 1467 (7th Cir. 1988), citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S.
5