383
submitted 10 months ago by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months 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 3 points 10 months 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.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I'd absolutely love that, personally.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 months 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 1 points 10 months 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 0 points 10 months ago
[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That wasn't a fillibuster. Republicans controlled the Senate

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months 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.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I totally thought you were talking about garland. Wow. Point conceded on that.

this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
383 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19082 readers
3480 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS