Did any of the GOP AGs who oppose the health care reform act file a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction? If not, then we know that this is nothing but a PR move. More below the fold.
Any lawyer will tell you that if you really mean business, you don't just file a complaint -- you file a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or for a preliminatry injunction (PI). That's how you ask a court to stop the opposing party from taking the action to which you object. It's not easy to get a TRO or PI, however -- among other things, you have to demonstrate to the court that you are likely to prevail on the merits. But if you mean business -- if you really believe the other side is operating in a way that is unlawful -- you file the motion for a TRO or PI with your complaint. At a minimum, the failure to do so is taken as an indication that the relief you seek is not urgent -- if you thought it was, you should seek injunctive relief immediately. So, where's the motion? I've heard that 13 Republican AGs have filed or soon wil file complaints challenging the health care reform act (not a bill anymore!), but I haven't heard of any of them actually moving for injunctive relief. Oh, they'll claim it's not urgent because the rules don't take effect immediately, but if so, why did Cuccinelli file his complaint within an hour after President Obama signed the law. The failure to file a motion for TRO or PI can only be read one way: The AGs don't really believe that they will prevail, and that the lawsuits are nothing but a stunt to further delude the Tea Baggers. If the mean what they claim, they should have sought injunctive relief immediately. If they didn't, it's proof that this is just a PR move. No motion, no merit to the complaint.
Update -- Just to review, in Federal court, a defendant generally has two immediate options (if the plaintiff doesn't file for an injunction): It can file an answer (which is just a statement concerning what points it agrees with and which it does not and a list of defenses) or it can file a motion to dismiss, if it thinks there are good reasons to oppose the complaint (lack of standing, no legal basis for the complaint, etc.). Unless the parties agree to a quicker response period, the United States will have 60 days to respond (late May). If it files an answer, the case will be placed on one of the dockets maintained by the court --some courts have expedited dockets -- but presumably, either side would have a right to seek discovery, depose witnesses, etc., before the local court would take any formal action (usually on the basis of a motion for summary judgment). Alternatively, if the GOvernment moves to dismiss, there would be a relatively short time for the parties to submit the briefs and then presumably the judge would have a hearing and then issue an opinion. 13 different districts are involved here, and there may be local rules that would vary some of these general rules, and it is possible that the parties might agree to expedite some matters, so that the issues get resolved sooner, rather than later, but that's the basic idea.