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
      ·
      1 year ago

      My life is so fuckin dope that I literally got matching “Dope” tattoos with my wife because our lives are dope and we do dope shit

      You married?

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

        You’re a dope but not dope.

        What does that matter boss? It’s anyone unmarried with less, are we finding yet more bigotry?

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

          I was curious, since you don’t seem like a happy person.

          Ohhh are we gonna do this again? You’re one I’ll never block 😘

          • 20hzservers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m here to help and provide information or assistance on a wide range of topics. If something seems weird or if you have a specific question or topic you’d like to discuss, feel free to let me know, and I’ll do my best to assist you!

            –ChatSCB