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

    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?

                  • @Madison420
                    link
                    01 year ago

                    Look up dumb dumb. Egomaniacal bullshit, trying to get laughs because you can’t get a W, that sort of thing.