Posted on 05/13/2010 1:55:04 PM PDT by Elderberry
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision, which does not take effect until January 1, 2014 and may not affect plaintiffs even then.
Whether plaintiffs’ challenge to the minimum coverage provision is ripe, given that the provision does not take effect until January 1, 2014 and may not affect plaintiffs even then.
Whether the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), bars plaintiffs from obtaining an injunction against the assessment or collection of the penalty under the minimum coverage provision.
Whether, if this Court determines that it has subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiffs meet the prerequisites for the extraordinary relief they seek. A.
Whether plaintiffs have established that preliminary equitable relief now is necessary to spare them irreparable harm even though the minimum coverage provision will not take effect until 2014.
Whether plaintiffs have shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not a proper exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce or its authority to collect revenue and make expenditures for the general welfare.
Whether plaintiffs have established that the balance of equities and the public interest favor preliminary injunctive relief to stop comprehensive regulation of the health care market that Congress deemed essential to public health and economic well-being.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
What’s your take on this?
“Lopez was a challenge to the Gun-Free School Zones
Act of 1990, “a brief, single-subject statute making it a crime for an individual to possess a gun
in a school zone.” Raich, 545 U.S. at 23. The Court concluded that possessing a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity.
This is their commerce clause defense. Apparently not buying insurance is actually an economic activity in the twisted liberal view.
Just from glancing over the headings in the response, it would appear the administration is going to defend itself in this suit by claiming lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs. Also that since there is no harm done as yet by the HCR bill, there are no grounds to bring suit. Think of it as the ‘I haven’t shot you yet, I only plan to” defence.
I would have to agree with the government position on this. Thomas More is attempting to get the court to issue a preliminary injunction preventing the health care provisions re: the payment of a penalty for failure to secure health benefits from going into effect.
The request for an injunction is clearly pre-mature as the law does not actually go into effect for another 4 years. In order to get an injunction you must prove up a prima facie case of "irreparable harm". The proper remedy at this point is to call upon congress to modify or repeal the law before it goes into effect. There is no "irreparable harm" since the plaintiffs still have 4 years to petition congress to change the law or repeal it before they suffer any harm. Even then they can only prove "irreparable harm" if they are not insured in 4 years.
At this point, I don't think there is a real plaintiff. Only potential plaintiffs. Therefore even the most conservative court will toss out this petition.
Wouldn’t they have standing since they are being harmed by the increased taxes that are to start soon?
James
IIRC the only federal lawsuit in which taxpayers have standing is in regard to establishment clause cases, and then only if the taxpayer is claiming that the government action amounts to an establishment of religion.
Even if they had standing, they are not going to get a preliminary injunction. I don't think a court has ever granted a preliminary injunction to prevent a tax increase from going into effect.
gnip
bump
Isn’t this Law Center supported by Mark Levin and colleagues?
These guys know their stuff!
The issue is whether the government has the authority to order people to spend their money to buy health care from a particular party, and enforce it with criminal sanctions.
http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=14
So no one can refuse to pay for health care.There is no choice according to the government.
This is a very weak argument IMHO.
Its the old right to health care versus duty to provide for ones self argument.
The law is demographic warfare on the people.
obumpa
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.