Will each Supreme Court justice vote to allow Trump full and unconditional access to Colorado's ballot?
115
1.4K
7.7K
resolved Mar 5
Resolved
YES
Samuel Alito
Resolved
YES
Amy Coney Barrett
Resolved
YES
Neil Gorsuch
Resolved
YES
Ketanji Jackson
Resolved
YES
Elena Kagan
Resolved
YES
Brett Kavanaugh
Resolved
YES
John Roberts
Resolved
YES
Sonia Sotomayor
Resolved
YES
Clarence Thomas

This market will resolve each of the justices' names to the way that they vote on any case that reaches the Supreme Court regarding Trump's access to the Colorado ballot due to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The market will be decided on the opinion of whether Trump is ineligible for at least one election in the state of Colorado under any potential circumstance.

A NO resolution occurs if:

  • The justice authors or concurs in at least one opinion that believes that Trump is ineligible for any reason or with any condition

  • The court is unable to agree and rules with a plurality opinion making Trump ineligible, and the justice fails to address the topic in a dissent, therefore enabling NO by taking no action

  • The court allows the existing lower court ruling to stand by denying certiorari

A N/A resolution occurs if the justice:

  • Recuses himself or herself

  • Dies

  • Resigns

  • Attaches his or her name to opinions that are unreconcilable on the topic of ballot access in Colorado

A YES resolution occurs if:

  • The justice authors or concurs in at least one opinion that believes that Trump is eligible to appear on the ballot under all conditions

  • The court is unable to agree and rules with a plurality opinion making Trump eligible, and the justice fails to address the topic in a dissent, therefore enabling YES by taking no action

The reasoning for why Trump is allowed ballot access is irrelevant, even if the justice claims some trivial reason like standing; however, the reasoning must be in the context of addressing the issue of the 14th amendment. Whether other cases involving Trump deny him access to Colorado's ballot is not relevant.


RELATED MARKETS:

/SteveSokolowski/will-each-supreme-court-justice-vot-94d54d2d4c3f

Get Ṁ200 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ747
2Ṁ464
3Ṁ445
4Ṁ322
5Ṁ284
Sort by:

RESOLUTION: I read the opinions in full and while the Justices disagreed on how far they would have gone and the reasoning for their decisions, none of them supported the removal of Trump from the ballot under any circumstance. Therefore, the resolution of all of the questions is YES.

I am working right now but this evening I want to put the decision along with this question into Claude 3 Opus to check to make sure that all of the criteria in the question text are accurate to say the decision was unanimous.

Reports about the decision are that it was lost on a legal technicality, and that there are concurring opinions.

Manifold has not made an "undo" button available, so it needs to be right the first time.

Time to resolve. 75% gainz is a few hours. Which is nice.

Why are people so confident that the Supreme Court will overturn this?

bought Ṁ5 of Samuel Alito NO

This market seems at tension with markets estimating 20+% chance of a 9-0 ruling. In cases where 9-0, it seems pretty unlikely they would agree on unconditional access (seems more likely something where all agree on something like due process concerns, and all agree to just not wade into if was insurrection and if Trump was involved). Thus, some combination where the 9-0 estimate is too high, or the estimates putting justices like Thomas at 93+% could be too high.

bought Ṁ10 of Elena Kagan YES

What does “under all conditions” mean here? If a justice votes that Trump should be allowed access, but have it revoked if convicted, is that No?

@MarkHamill That's a condition, and therefore would be NO.

To resolve YES, Trump must be listed on the ballot just as any other person would be, with the same rights and responsibilities as a normal candidate.

bought Ṁ10 of Amy Coney Barrett NO

rules-as-written, the author of the prevailing opinion(s) would not resolve with the opinions, as they do not "concur" with their own opinion; I'm guessing that's just a typo, right?

@Adam Yes, and I updated the text to state that. I also clarified the title.

bought Ṁ10 of Sonia Sotomayor YES

@josharian Sure, good inclusion

More related questions