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
    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