Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Proposition 8's Demise Refuted on InTrade??

I thought this was kind of interesting given the previous postings about Prop. 8. InTrade, for those not familiar, is kind of a glorified online bookie that allows people to bet on the potential outcomes of particular issues of interest. It's kind of a cool, counter-intuitive barometer of what people really think.

Price for California Supreme Court and Proposition 8 at intrade.com

14 comments:

  1. Sorry, I have a hard time with numbers... is this suggesting they won't overrule it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ 1:57--

    I also find it hard to follow exactly what it's saying, but I think so--yeah.

    Mind clarifying, Freddy?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sure: The number under "Last" represents the last exchanged price of the contract. "Bid" means what a buyer is willing to pay to buy into the contract; "Ask" is what a seller is willing to accept sell his stake in the contract.

    In this situation, "10" means that the last buyer of the contract paid "10" for his right to collect 100 if the contract "pays out". Since the contract pays out at "100" (100 = overturning of Prop. 8) this means that the buyer thought that the likelihood of the contract reaching "100" was less than or equal to "10," or 10% likelihood.

    Any clearer?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This does show that the general public thinks the Supreme Court will uphold it, which seems about right based on the OA. It's probably for the best, because it could create a perfect storm for the Supreme Court to finally recognize a fundamnetal right to same-sex marriages.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You people are insane....again...talking about Prop 8 like it is gospel...the PEOPLE have spoken and now activist judges are going to impose their FAULTY and FLAWED logic on the people's will. This country is a democracy...and we should always recognize the people's will. Sheesshh!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jeff, please just go away. :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jeff,

    Answer the following, please: To decide whether to pass a law authorizing the federal government to break into people's houses to check for terrorists with no degree of cause or suspicion, Congress calls for a national referendum. The measure passes by overwhelming margins, and Congress passes the bill which is approved by the Senate and signed into law by the President.

    During one such entry, the cops discover illegal contraband in Bob's house, and he is prosecuted. He moves to suppress the evidence on 4th Amendment grounds. Does the Court lack jurisdiction to hear the case because of the "people's will?" Is the case otherwise non-justiciable? What I'm getting at is where do we draw the line? Do the courts really have to cede to the will of the people?

    (The answer, of course, is and must be no. I just want to see how far you're willing to go to defend your ridiculous argument.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Jeff--

    I think 8:57 nailed it...your points make very little legal sense. I'm curious to hear your response.

    @ 8:57--

    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 8:57 and craig..don't criticize the truth. The simple fact of the matter is that this country was founded on the principle of democracy. D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y!! Spell it! It does not matter if the decisiosn of the people are incorrect, wrong, or plain dumb, they are the decisions. If you want to live in a big brother society where the people at the top decide everything, then move to Venuezula or Iran. Here, the people get to decide...

    Booyah

    ReplyDelete
  11. PS - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

    That is from the Declaration of Independence....proving my point that democracy is the central purpose of this country, and the law requires it....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jeff- I don't know whether to take you seriously or if you are just a provocateur...but I'll assume you legitimately believe these statements...

    Have you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.