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

    I stopped being dumb ages ago, in preparation for our conversation, because I knew you’d care bby

    Xoxoxo

    • @Madison420
      link
      11 year ago

      Apparently not.

      You’re not even trying anymore.

      • @SCB
        link
        01 year ago

        Try at what?

        • @Madison420
          link
          11 year ago

          Not being an obstinate idiot. It’ll be hard but the first step would be to stop trolling.

          • @SCB
            link
            01 year ago

            Hey man let’s just hi five and be bros!

            • @Madison420
              link
              11 year ago

              There’s that ableist bullshit again, is that all you got. Just insults and poorly researched overconfident nonsense?

              • @SCB
                link
                01 year ago

                You have another hand homeslice.

                  • @SCB
                    link
                    0
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    If not, I’m totally down to just kiss.

                    Friendly peck, or frenemy make out. Dealer’s choice.

    • @Sparlock
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      I stopped being dumb ages ago

      Citation needed.