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
    110 months 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
      010 months ago

      Probably not ever

      • @Madison420
        link
        110 months ago

        Most correct boy doesn’t know the answer?!

        • @SCB
          link
          010 months ago

          See above comment for my position there.

          It’s important to be humble.

            • @SCB
              link
              110 months ago

              I live it bgrrl

              • @Madison420
                link
                010 months ago

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

                • @SCB
                  link
                  110 months ago

                  We just discussed this. Yes.

                  • @Madison420
                    link
                    010 months ago

                    Did we, because you’re definitely not being humble.