That is only if they have an option to prepare and respond to it. This decision depends on implementation happening as soon as possible and for public will to push it through. You need to be clear with the public on what you intend to do to keep the momentum going. That is far more valuable, in this situation, than the negatives of your opponent being able to prepare. They're going to come up with a challenge regardless. Just look at how fast challenges came up after the initial announcement was made.
Right, my point is that Biden should change his policy so that the challenge doesn't even go to the SC. If the policy changes, then the challenge is moot and doesn't go to the court. Then he can focus on the other challenges. By letting it go to the SC he is risking a much wider scoped decision to limit what he can do.
"Only weak people make threats." Pretty much every labor right that exists in the United States and the developed world is a byproduct of reactions to threats. The welfare state, as we know, it is an answer to socialist movements -- threats to capitalism, as an example.
Here is a link for you to read. Just because you believe there are no other plans because the one currently in court has the higher profile, there are other plans his administration has instituted.
I am finding it hard to understand exactly how the public is going to push any alternative plan Biden has through. Exactly what momentum do you see with student loan forgiveness that I am missing. You have just about every GOP bringing up multiple lawsuits against his plans. There are still 5 more lawsuits against the current one. All executive orders can be challenged in court, so I am not sure exactly what the public is going to do when you have a whole segment against it.
I also disagree that this should not go to the SC because no matter what, it was going to go to the SC. Instead, it's best to know why they struck something down and then develop your plan around that then throwing out a bunch of alternatives which all will be challenged. If they rule on a limited condition then it's a simple change, if they rule in your favor, then you can institute more radical plans. If they totally strike this down then you do not waste a lot of time and effort with ineffective alternatives. Information is more key here then just throwing stuff at the wall.
A threat does not mean anything unless you are willing to do it. If you are willing to do it then why did you not lead with it. In negotiation, you always start high and negotiate towards a middle, not start low and try to go high. This is why your threat scenario just do not hold water. If I had a more radical plan, I would lead with that and force you to respond to it. Why lead with a weak plan then try to show strength, it doesn't make sense. What you are suggesting are just alternatives and they are not threats because each one can be acted on.