Monday, November 29, 2004
lawn economics
Stevens: What is your view on the effect of the state law on the interstate market? Increase prices, no effect on prices, or decrease in prices?
Barnett: Can I choose trivial reduction of price?
Stevens: If you reduce demand, then you will reduce prices? Wouldn’t it increase prices?
Barnett: No, if you reduce demand, you reduce price.
Stevens: Are you sure?
Barnett: Yes.
http://http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=03PMNU2YNWD3UCRBAEOCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6945344&pageNumber=1
recusal question:
plaintiff has cancer. chief justice has cancer. no one has suggested that that's grounds for recusal. i don't know what the standards and customs are.
a 4-4 split would make an ok resolution. another possibility is that the chief gets sicker and resigns before the case is decided. 4-4 is only a possibility.
It's a case that could go either way.
None of these guys can be called.
Wild ass guesses: stevens, ginsberg, results driven find for plaintiff.
breyer, souter, chief, tend to uphold regulatory meddling.
thomas, overrule wickard. scalia, who knows?
kennedy, occonnor, who knows.
update: will baude has similar thoughts but is more pessimistic. he says 6-3.
i'm a wild-eyed optimist in thinking this has a chance.
i was wrong about hiibert, but barnett and i were right about lawrence.
the "conservative" wing will have to decide which is more important, be good drug warriors, or get revenge on roosevelt.
perhaps they can write an opinion in which congress didn't have commerce power,
but we apply the drug exception to uphold the statute.
it's all within the margin of error, like trying to call the washington governor's race.
factors supporting my side (my side being, it could go either way)
1) in lopez and morrison, the court didn't like guns in schools or violence against women. they used these extreme examples to make a basic point about separation of powers.
2) questions in oral argument are tough. the media tends to assume that tips the hand. the toughest questions are reserved for the most respected arguments.
let's see what experienced courtwachers like linda greenhouse say over the next few days, and let's listen to solum saying this is too close to call.
but see scotusblog - 9-0 overrule prediction.
markets in everything: what are the odds? oops i forgot, i don't bet.
but if one could get good odds now, and hedge those odds later, it might be a play.
update: greenhouse, totenberg, major media concur, it doesn't look good.
maybe the most we get is one of those dissents that someday gets proved right.
look for -really- good odds now and then hedge later. better than 4-1, it becomes a play. at 2-1, it's a pass. not that i bet.
Stevens: What is your view on the effect of the state law on the interstate market? Increase prices, no effect on prices, or decrease in prices?
Barnett: Can I choose trivial reduction of price?
Stevens: If you reduce demand, then you will reduce prices? Wouldn’t it increase prices?
Barnett: No, if you reduce demand, you reduce price.
Stevens: Are you sure?
Barnett: Yes.
http://http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=03PMNU2YNWD3UCRBAEOCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6945344&pageNumber=1
recusal question:
plaintiff has cancer. chief justice has cancer. no one has suggested that that's grounds for recusal. i don't know what the standards and customs are.
a 4-4 split would make an ok resolution. another possibility is that the chief gets sicker and resigns before the case is decided. 4-4 is only a possibility.
It's a case that could go either way.
None of these guys can be called.
Wild ass guesses: stevens, ginsberg, results driven find for plaintiff.
breyer, souter, chief, tend to uphold regulatory meddling.
thomas, overrule wickard. scalia, who knows?
kennedy, occonnor, who knows.
update: will baude has similar thoughts but is more pessimistic. he says 6-3.
i'm a wild-eyed optimist in thinking this has a chance.
i was wrong about hiibert, but barnett and i were right about lawrence.
the "conservative" wing will have to decide which is more important, be good drug warriors, or get revenge on roosevelt.
perhaps they can write an opinion in which congress didn't have commerce power,
but we apply the drug exception to uphold the statute.
it's all within the margin of error, like trying to call the washington governor's race.
factors supporting my side (my side being, it could go either way)
1) in lopez and morrison, the court didn't like guns in schools or violence against women. they used these extreme examples to make a basic point about separation of powers.
2) questions in oral argument are tough. the media tends to assume that tips the hand. the toughest questions are reserved for the most respected arguments.
let's see what experienced courtwachers like linda greenhouse say over the next few days, and let's listen to solum saying this is too close to call.
but see scotusblog - 9-0 overrule prediction.
markets in everything: what are the odds? oops i forgot, i don't bet.
but if one could get good odds now, and hedge those odds later, it might be a play.
update: greenhouse, totenberg, major media concur, it doesn't look good.
maybe the most we get is one of those dissents that someday gets proved right.
look for -really- good odds now and then hedge later. better than 4-1, it becomes a play. at 2-1, it's a pass. not that i bet.
Comments:
Post a Comment
