The question of ripeness often arises in cases where the harm asserted by the plaintiff has not yet occurred. Because courts are not permitted to decide merely hypothetical questions or possibilities, the court must determine whether the issues are fit for judicial review. A case is typically considered ripe if it presents a purely legal issue, or if further development of the facts will not render the issue more concrete.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/ripe
As for standing:
As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, respondents bear the burden of showing standing by establishing, inter alia, that theyhave suffered an injury in fact, i. e., a concrete and particularized, actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest. To survive a summary judgment motion, they must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts to support their claim. Standing is particularly difficult to show here, since third parties, rather than respondents, are the object of the Government action or inaction to which respondents object. Pp. 3-6.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1424.ZS.html
Neither standing nor ripeness should be an issue.
If the SC judges could only read the founding document, this bill would be toast. But, they apparently cannot read.
Thank you. What do you think of Harvard’s Tushnet’s comments in post #3?
It seems that even if a person does not buy health insurance, they perhaps are indeed engaging in commerce but it is not interstate commerce, is it? How can Tushnet think this commerce should be regulated by the federal government?