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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s weird.

    • 20hzservers
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You read like a chat gpt bot told to be slightly antagonistic to every comment you read.

          • Sparlock
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m here to help and provide information or assistance on a wide range of topics. If something seems weird or if you have a specific question or topic you’d like to discuss, feel free to let me know, and I’ll do my best to assist you!

            –ChatSCB

            • 20hzservers
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol I’m following him around and postin this under his comments. Thank you.