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 mean, I could say you’re bias to the article too, and that’d be as much concrete argument as you’re giving here.
Go into detail.
@AnonTwo @spaceghoti @NoIWontPickaName
sounds like I am doing all the heavy lifting
look at the first paragraph,
which sentences are meat and which are fat?