nonjustieiable because a party loses, for this is a determination that can only be made after the court has assumed jurisdiction and either examined the pleadings for a RCFC 12(b)(6) motion or reached the merits, both of which necessarily follow a ruling that the ease is justiciable. For a court to lack ability to provide relief under the concept of justiciability, the plaintiff must be seeking something that is beyond the court’s power to effect because of separation of powers concerns and the vesting of unreviewable discretion in another body. See, e.g., Orloff, 345 U.S. at 93, 73 S.Ct. 534 (finding that it was “not within the power” of the courts to review determination to assign doctor to particular duties in the medical field); Wilson v. Walker, 777 F.2d 427, 429 (8th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Having decided that this particular ease
holding a congressional act which required courts to reopen certain final judgments as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine recognizing separation of powers doctrine recognizing that tjraditional notions of judicial restraint and of the separation of powers require courts to refuse to review military duty assignments recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers