9/6/2023 0 Comments Fivethirtyeight bloggerSeem to argue against a substantial change in the odds either way. Verrilli, who was defending its constitutionality. The words from the bench were directed at the lawyers arguing against the mandate, while 46 percent were directed at Mr. Which side was that in the health care case? Technically, it was the lawyers representing the State of Florida, who were arguing that the law was unconstitutional. These studies found that the side being asked more questions from the bench during oral arguments is more likely to lose the case, since this may indicate skepticism from the court about its position. It’s just a question of how much power they have, and how unambiguous the evidence about oral arguments is in To be clear, the evidence is that oral arguments do have some predictive power in forecasting SupremeĬourt decisions, according to a variety of empirical analyses from academic and legal scholars. This may be another case of traders being overconfident about the value of their information,Ī property which has also been observed in the stock market. Is such a large shift in sentiment justified? In my view, probably not. The odds of the mandate’s being overturned have fluctuated some since then, but have risen even further in the past few weeks, according to the market. Quickly, the chance of the mandate’s being overturned climbed to about 65 percent from 35 percent at the market. After these oral arguments, Intrade’s betting shifted dramatically.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |