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
    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.