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

    The very first one describes the steps they took in the fifties to regain power by collapsing our government. This is the culmination of their plan. Did you think they had no end game?

    • @SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I think your entire belief system is beyond just not making sense, and is likely representative of larger.menyal illness

      That you conflate evangelicals, Grover Norquist, and tech billionaires is beyond nonsensical