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.

  • spaceghotiOP
    link
    English
    57 months ago

    Ah, it doesn’t fit your ideological bias, therefore it must not be worth reading. Understood.

      • spaceghotiOP
        link
        English
        67 months ago

        I’m not assuming I’m being attacked. The utter lack of anything concrete in the criticism of the article suggests that the commenter is offended by the topic and possibly the source. I was just clarifying the nature of their objection.

      • AnonTwo
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        To be fair, it’s pretty silly to throw out the entire article’s merits on a few bias statements.

        Very few articles are completely without bias.

        Like it really just sounds like perfect brains is trying to discard the argument just because they don’t wanna hear it.