I'll have to use my own judgement, but to clarify what I mean by "bizarre", I'm talking about someone like Matt Gaetz or Kash Patel - lacking experience, publicly flaunts the law, that sort of thing.

The idea of this market is to determine whether Trump will try to appoint someone beyond the norm. Therefore, if they are "merely" as controversial as a sitting justice, that would be a NO. A nominee would not resolve YES on the basis of ideological extremism unless they were substantially further right than Thomas and Alito, and they would not resolve YES on the basis of potential crimes unless the accusations were more credible than those against Kavanaugh.

Examples of what would be a clear YES would be Judge Judy or Marjorie Taylor Greene. To give you an idea of where "the line" is: I would say Ted Cruz is probably the craziest example I could give that would still resolve NO.

• Update 2025-06-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided further thoughts on evaluating nominees:

  • Nominee not being a circuit judge is not an automatic YES, but a lack of significant legal experience (e.g., not SCOTUS-caliber, inability to demonstrate basic legal knowledge) would lean towards YES.

  • Specific examples discussed (these are noted as tentative conclusions by the creator):

  • Likely NO: Amul Thapar, Andrew Oldham, Aileen Cannon (perceived bias not necessarily "out of the ordinary"), James Ho (ideology not seen as more extreme than Justice Thomas), Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley.

  • Likely YES: Emil Bove (insufficient SCOTUS-caliber experience, ethics concerns), Jeanine Pirro (lacks understanding of SCOTUS-level law, objectivity concerns).

  • On the fence: Mike Lee (concerns about legal experience level relative to others and controversies like election challenges).

  • Confirmation hearings may be reviewed, particularly to assess a nominee's demonstration of basic legal knowledge.