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.
@NoIWontPickaName @spaceghoti @AnonTwo
It means I don’t care.
No one has to block anyone, just don’t tag me
@NoIWontPickaName @spaceghoti @AnonTwo
I did not tag you.
But you probably want to put on this whiny show as a form of virtue signaling, making the other person do all the work for you.
and then you may be that hacker who sets up situations in which he can hack other people but make it look like it’s their fault
Bro… maybe it’s your interface or maybe you are just a troll but you keep putting @noiwontpickaname and it is tagging me.
Have the day you deserve friend.
@NoIWontPickaName @spaceghoti @AnonTwo
I am not tagging you, but I will block you
I’ll return the favor since you blocking me only means you can’t hear me not vice versa