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
    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.

                • @Madison420
                  link
                  01 year ago

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

                  • @SCB
                    link
                    11 year ago

                    How so?