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
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If not, I’m totally down to just kiss.

        Friendly peck, or frenemy make out. Dealer’s choice.

        • @Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Or you could be less of a dumbfuck troll and defend yet another one of your dipshit arguments.

          It is fun that every time you can’t figure out a defense you jump straight to bigoted bullshit and terrible fucking jokes. You’d think you’d at least be good at one of those two things.

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

            I don’t need to defend anything to you, because you’re not a serious poster, and your main priority is slap fighting.

            I’m amazing at terrible jokes.

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

                Lmao you called me a eugenicist, so yes

                But as far as I’m concerned we’re friends now. I look forward to our chats.