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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sure, or I could have been born like that but we know how you feel about disability which is why I call you a Nazi. Keep up.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well you know what they say.

      You’re beautiful in your way, because God makes no mistakes

      You’re on the right track baby, you were born this way

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And they’d be fucking stupid.

        Are you legit quoting Katy Perry and thinking it’s somehow a point?

        A Nazi that loves “fireworks” is an interesting combo.