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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -11 year ago

    The GOP will dumpster the filibuster, like they have, the moment they have the votes. The remaining effect being it only serves as a self imposed limitation by the Democratic Party.

    The GOPs lack of a majority is what prevents them from passing crazy shit. The Democrats not passing anything when they have the votes, the power, or the chance is one of the largest factors in enabling the GOP into the majority.

    • @SCB
      link
      11 year ago

      The GOP will dumpster the filibuster, like they have, the moment they have the votes

      They’ve never done this

      The Democrats not passing anything when they have the votes, the power, or the chance is one of the largest factors in enabling the GOP into the majority.

      This flies in the face of concurrent years of dem wins in the house/senate.

        • @SCB
          link
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That wasn’t a fillibuster. Republicans controlled the Senate

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            They didn’t have the votes to beat a filibuster, so the rules were changed to lower the vote threshold to advance the SCOTUS nomination. Senate control is what allowed them to make the rule change, hence it being on then for changing the rule in 2017.

            • @SCB
              link
              21 year ago

              I totally thought you were talking about garland. Wow. Point conceded on that.

            • @SCB
              link
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              deleted by creator