No, not at all. Immediate harm was never the criteria we were discussing. It was any harm. It’s always been legal to argue that you have a reasonable suspicion that a law will affect you personally. Even if it has yet to do so. That can be argued in a court of law. That is not what I’m objecting to at all

What I’m objecting to is the current practice in conservative legal thought process where you can sue when you have no reasonable expectation that it will affect you personally. We’ve seen that all over conservative legal arguments lately.