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
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s ok that you don’t know what “objectively” means. I love teaching you words. It’s a core part of our friendship, chief!

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes yes everyone is crazy and you’re the most right boy ever, sure. Whatever you need your mommy to tell you so you can sleep sound at night.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

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

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I never lashed out lol

                I really do think you’re crazy. I find it kinda hot.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

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

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I called you crazy because you said crazy shit, not because e you disagree with me. The person who insulted the other for disagreeing is you.

                    It’s not sexual harassment to be turned on.