This market will resolve to “No” if any of the following events have occurred on or before January 20, 2029:
1. Executive Order Alters Judicial Structure
An executive order is issued that explicitly restructures or diminishes the constitutional role, jurisdiction, or appointment process of the federal judiciary.
2. Legislative Act Undermines Judicial Independence
Congress enacts a law that materially changes the federal judiciary’s jurisdiction, lifetime tenure provisions, or removes established Article III protections in a way that contravenes the constitutional framework.
3. Forced Removal of Judges Outside Impeachment
Any serving federal judge is removed, forced to resign, or otherwise deprived of their appointment through means other than the constitutionally prescribed impeachment process.
1,000Question: are the terms written so that any move to rebalance power towards Trump triggers NO? I'm curious about history here. The following situations seem very different to me, and I'd love to clearly distinguish between them.
If historically, power has swung back and forth, and Trump moves to a level which was previously in effect
Historically presidents of all parties have moved to get more power and Trump continues this (increasing presidential power)
Each of the above, but via normal, "legal" means vs via questionable means vs clearly non standard or illegal means
I think a core question in all these preservation of democracy discussions is whether we object to power used at all, or to power used legally against our preferences or illegally. I see so much conflation of these cases and I think this masks the real state.
I for one hope that if clearly super illegal power use happens that the people would use that long defended, post primary constitutional amendment's provisions around obtaining mechanical support (of various calibers) for their will and rights, to restore legality and the Constitution. Yet claiming that we have to fight when it's just natural results seems to be crying wolf. So I would like claims that help distinguish between "Trump does the kind of thing many presidents have done, which the other party hates" and "Trump does unprecedentedly bad illegal stuff reaching new lows"
@Ernie I agree with your points. I don't know how to improve the description. I've been talking with ChatGPT about this but I feel the replies are too vague. Any lawyer here who could help?
Please advise on how to make the resolution criteria even more specific if possible or whether they are good like this