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

      If not, I’m totally down to just kiss.

      Friendly peck, or frenemy make out. Dealer’s choice.

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

        Or you could be less of a dumbfuck troll and defend yet another one of your dipshit arguments.

        It is fun that every time you can’t figure out a defense you jump straight to bigoted bullshit and terrible fucking jokes. You’d think you’d at least be good at one of those two things.

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

          I don’t need to defend anything to you, because you’re not a serious poster, and your main priority is slap fighting.

          I’m amazing at terrible jokes.