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
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 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
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 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.

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

          Well you know what they say.

          You’re beautiful in your way, because God makes no mistakes

          You’re on the right track baby, you were born this way