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.
I didn’t follow you lol
You spammed me for 2 days so your username is really easy to recognize
You did, why lie.
I didn’t spam you bud, in fact you boasted about trolling me. You ain’t too smart bud.
You’re a bigot, at least be an honest bigot. An ashamed Nazi is still a Nazi after all.
Your comment was already at like -24 when I stumbled upon this lol
Idk what you’re fixated on me. It’s kinda weird. Crazy even
Uh huh, whatever makes you feel better boss. Did you add anything to the conversation or did you instead just continue your shitty behavior.
I’m not, if you didn’t want to be bothered by me you probably shouldn’t reach out to me, makes sense right.
You dumb. You’re a bigot at least be an honest bigot. An ashamed Nazi is still a Nazi after all.
I recommended you better posting habits.
Could you recommend me a complete sentence?
“Try to use complete sentences”
I got you fam.
Good advice, you should take it.
You aren’t my family bud or you wouldn’t be a bigot.
“Fam” is slang. Also you don’t need to use complete sentences. You’re not in my class. You just asked me to advise you to, and I find you fun so I wanted to help out.