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
    -11 year ago

    That’s weird.

    • @20hzservers
      link
      51 year ago

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

      • @Sparlock
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s weird /s

          • @Sparlock
            link
            English
            11 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
              21 year ago

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