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.

  • WoodlandAlliance@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Literally when Biden was elected and they controlled the entire government for a few months. As usual they did nothing that could challenge the status quo because a few party members stood to gain by opposing the rest of the party.

    *Note: Still make sure you vote for them because it’s better than outright fascism, but keep criticizing them too.

    • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They tried changing the rules, but were blocked by Manchin and Sinema. Were you asleep at the time?

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You really super duper don’t want to get rid of the filibuster because it’s the only thing preventing Republicans from ranking through all kinds of crazy shit

          They currently control the house, and while they’ll probably lose it in '24, they will absolutely control it (and almost certainly the Senate) again some day.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If they keep the fillibuster, they should make it so you have to keep talking. Actually get up there and talk for 20 hours if you hate the bill so much.

          • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The GOP will dumpster the filibuster, like they have, the moment they have the votes. The remaining effect being it only serves as a self imposed limitation by the Democratic Party.

            The GOPs lack of a majority is what prevents them from passing crazy shit. The Democrats not passing anything when they have the votes, the power, or the chance is one of the largest factors in enabling the GOP into the majority.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The GOP will dumpster the filibuster, like they have, the moment they have the votes

              They’ve never done this

              The Democrats not passing anything when they have the votes, the power, or the chance is one of the largest factors in enabling the GOP into the majority.

              This flies in the face of concurrent years of dem wins in the house/senate.

                  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    They didn’t have the votes to beat a filibuster, so the rules were changed to lower the vote threshold to advance the SCOTUS nomination. Senate control is what allowed them to make the rule change, hence it being on then for changing the rule in 2017.