For example, an insurance company might seek relief from a regulation of Obamacare or more particularly claim that extending the deadline for signing up either individuals or corporate accounts somehow adversely affects them and is done without any statutory authority whatsoever. More likely, some party might be fined for violation of some regulation which is ultra virus the statute perhaps arising out of this make-it-up-as-you-go-along rollout of the law and a court holds that the regulation is unconstitutional or unconstitutionally arrived at. If the regulation is fundamental to the practical success of Obamacare, the whole thing could crash.
Rather than attempt to get a delay through litigation my thought is to try to find the Achilles' heel of Obamacare and get the whole monstrosity declared unconstitutional. This is a bit different than the question that was put before the Supreme Court which Chief Justice Roberts sodomized.
There is such a vast net cast by this law attempting to regulate one out of every 15 dollars that changes hands in America, that there must be whole provisions that ultimately will be struck down. If this were a matter that is currently in favor, the legal flavor of the year as it were, such as civil rights in the 1960s and homosexual rights today, you can be sure that our activist courts would scour the law on any excuse to find a way to make history. One of our big problems is that this is seen by the courts as a economic matter which they have decided to leave to the political branches of the government since the court caved during the new deal. The court turned its attention to the rights of the criminally accused, civil rights, women's rights, and homosexuals' rights. A smart lawyer will change the nature of the game away from economic issues to something more sexy.
Maybe a selective way is best, but I prefer: “The winnah is the one thet gits thar fustest, with the mostest!”