The plaintiffs’ arguments in Moore v. United States have little basis in law — unless you think that a list of long-ago-discarded laissez-faire decisions from the early 20th century remain good law. And a decision favoring these plaintiffs could blow a huge hole in the federal budget. While no Warren-style wealth tax is on the books, the Moore plaintiffs do challenge an existing tax that is expected to raise $340 billion over the course of a decade.

But Republicans also hold six seats on the nation’s highest Court, so there is some risk that a majority of the justices will accept the plaintiffs’ dubious legal arguments. And if they do so, they could do considerable damage to the government’s ability to fund itself.

  • @SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    01 year ago

    They were definitely my friends because they still are my friends lol

    Also I don’t think you’re much of an athlete

    • @Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      I doubt you have any bud.

      You’d be right, was it the disability you can’t help but make fun of that tipped you off? Genius commentary bud, keep it up.

      You’re a bigot, at least be an honest bigot. An ashamed Nazi is still a Nazi.

      • @SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You could’ve gotten your disability from sports - you know, the same way I got my injuries.

        • @Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Sure, or I could have been born like that but we know how you feel about disability which is why I call you a Nazi. Keep up.