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.

  • @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.