Yeah, because in two years, and not incrementally and partially and sequentially building until then, everyone will suddenly have to come up with a buck twenty five, and so for all intents and purposes, the timing of the enfoceability of the statute begins at that future point, to a degree which has trivial economic impact to the threshold of considering prior court action.
No?
What, you say that it's not a buck twenty five, but trillions of dollars and a sixth of the economy and a hundred thousand medically-related businesses and tens of millions of people having to incrementally and partially and sequentially prepare for the next two years to meet the statute's requirements, at tremendous cost and expense of time and money, significantly effecting almost every aspect of their lives?
Oh.
Well then, that might, just might, maybe, constitute an immediate harm, since consdieration of immediate harm is, in fact, part of how the Court works. But hey, internet experts everywhere highly doubt this will meet certain standards of urgency that the general population, naive as they always are, simply don't understand.
Standards, like, uh, overfreekingwhelming SCALE of impact, for example. A trillion dollars here, fifty million people there, and all of a sudden everyone is whining.
: Sigh: Nobody understands law anymore.
Well then, I'm sure the Court will bow to your legal superiority and will certainly hear the case sometime next week.
Would you like to place any wagers?
Somehow, I think this internet expert will be safely in the company of names like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito this time next week. But hey, what do those guys know?