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.

  • @Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    010 months ago

    Uh huh, just people that force your argument into a corner, then you lash out. Gotcha, so just childish bigoted behavior.

      • @Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        010 months ago

        Calling people crazy because you can’t defend your actual argument is lashing out.

        Sexual harassment too, you’re a fucking weirdo dude.