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.
They tried changing the rules, but were blocked by Manchin and Sinema. Were you asleep at the time?
oh right I keep forgetting about that part
The Democratic Party’s ability to legislate wass brought to its knees by an administrative staffer (the parliamentarian) and enshrined themselves to be hamstrung by the filibuster.
Republicans fired the last parliamentarian that threw up a roadblock and they threw out the filibuster just for themselves to install the SCOTUS that exists now.
The rules could have always been changed and power could always have been leveraged and exercised. It is a conscious choice not to.
deleted by creator
Yup. Same question.
I don’t really expect an answer.