[Future Snake Eater]

Maybe b/c the tax hasn’t been implemented yet? I can’t remember the court case, but some 1870s decision says that a tax can’t be challenged in court until it’s been implemented.

[hoosiermama]

You are correct a tax cannot be challenged until it's implemented because until then no harm is done. However, a bill passed by the wrong house of congress, under false pretense IMO can be challenged. Check mate all over again.

[saleman]

Exactly right. Robert has painted them into a corner from which they cannot back out. Brilliant. Soon enough the Dems will realize what has happened. And they will scream to high heaven. But, since their own Justices ruled....

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe b/c the tax hasn’t been implemented yet? I can’t remember the court case, but some 1870s decision says that a tax can’t be challenged in court until it’s been implemented.

That's exactly right. It's not just a tax, either. Any legal action has to be brought by someone who has the proper legal standing to file the lawsuit. And in order to have proper legal standing you have to be able to demonstrate that you've been harmed in some way by someone's actions. Almost by definition (since there may be unusual cases that I haven't thought about here), a tax that isn't implemented for another two years isn't something that causes harm today.

The rationale for a court to take a hands-off approach in that case is simple: What happens if the legislative body that passed the law in the first place turns around and changes it before it is ever implemented? Why waste the court's time on something like that?