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.

  • @Madison420
    link
    11 year ago

    After you cracked jokes at my disability…

    Well you found another thing you’re wrong about.

    • @SCB
      link
      01 year ago

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

      • @Madison420
        link
        11 year ago

        Obstinacy isn’t a measure of correctness.

        • @SCB
          link
          01 year ago

          No correctness is. And I’m correct.

            • @SCB
              link
              01 year 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!

              • @Madison420
                link
                11 year ago

                Yes yes everyone is crazy and you’re the most right boy ever, sure. Whatever you need your mommy to tell you so you can sleep sound at night.

                • @SCB
                  link
                  01 year ago

                  Everyone’s not crazy. We’ve been over this.

                  • @Madison420
                    link
                    01 year ago

                    Uh huh, just people that force your argument into a corner, then you lash out. Gotcha, so just childish bigoted behavior.