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.
Yes it was me that decided to start insults.
Not at all, you seem to be bad at just about everything here.
Lmao you called me a eugenicist, so yes
But as far as I’m concerned we’re friends now. I look forward to our chats.
After you cracked jokes at my disability…
Well you found another thing you’re wrong about.
If I was wrong we wouldn’t be having these special moments chief.
Obstinacy isn’t a measure of correctness.
No correctness is. And I’m correct.
You’re objectively not.
It’s ok that you don’t know what “objectively” means. I love teaching you words. It’s a core part of our friendship, chief!
Yes yes everyone is crazy and you’re the most right boy ever, sure. Whatever you need your mommy to tell you so you can sleep sound at night.