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 called you crazy because you said crazy shit, not because e you disagree with me. The person who insulted the other for disagreeing is you.

    It’s not sexual harassment to be turned on.

    • @Madison420
      link
      11 year ago

      Ya huh, your the most correct boy who ever lived. You’re also full of shit about me insulting you first dumb dumb.

      It is if you tell them other person and they clearly want nothing to do with you.

      • @SCB
        link
        01 year ago

        Probably not ever

        • @Madison420
          link
          11 year ago

          Most correct boy doesn’t know the answer?!

          • @SCB
            link
            01 year ago

            See above comment for my position there.

            It’s important to be humble.

              • @SCB
                link
                11 year ago

                I live it bgrrl

                • @Madison420
                  link
                  01 year ago

                  Yeah, that’s what you’re. At this point I have to ask, are you ever correct about anything?

                  • @SCB
                    link
                    11 year ago

                    We just discussed this. Yes.