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
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    I don’t need to defend anything to you, because you’re not a serious poster, and your main priority is slap fighting.

    I’m amazing at terrible jokes.

    • Madison420
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yes it was me that decided to start insults.

      Not at all, you seem to be bad at just about everything here.

      • SCB
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Lmao you called me a eugenicist, so yes

        But as far as I’m concerned we’re friends now. I look forward to our chats.

        • Madison420
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          After you cracked jokes at my disability…

          Well you found another thing you’re wrong about.

          • SCB
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            If I was wrong we wouldn’t be having these special moments chief.

            • Madison420
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 years ago

              Obstinacy isn’t a measure of correctness.

              • SCB
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 years ago

                No correctness is. And I’m correct.

                  • SCB
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    It’s ok that you don’t know what “objectively” means. I love teaching you words. It’s a core part of our friendship, chief!