What’s your take on this?
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.