pageok
pageok
pageok
Luttig Takes the Lead:

Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig has taken a sudden jump and lead (by the time you read this link , the betting may have substantially changed) in the Tradesports Supreme Court nomination betting. Still, he's only at a bit over 18%, so there is no dominant favorite. We shall see.

Nobody Special:
deo volente.
10.2.2005 9:42pm
Jay Goodman Tamboli (mail) (www):
Williams is also up. Not as much of a gain today, but she's barely in the lead at the moment. I really wonder, though, whether the people betting there are in it for the long haul (i.e. to the nomination), or if they're trading in and out depending on the rumors. Buy some Luttig, post to your well-read blog that maybe it means something, and sell when the price goes up. I'm not accusing you of anything; I just really can't believe that anyone who knows anything substantive is actually betting. It's fun to watch, though.
10.3.2005 12:20am
Jeremy (mail):

I just really can't believe that anyone who knows anything substantive is actually betting.


That's a very, very poor assumption.

How 'bout that Fourth Circuit!
10.3.2005 12:31am
Joseph Henchman (mail):
I would post a longer reply, but I'm selling my Luttig on the uptick! j/k
10.3.2005 12:34am
Larry Faria (mail):
Well, I took that quiz that sifts through your answers and presents the candidate that most closely matches the answers. Since George Bush is making the decision and he pretty much does things his way, I answered as I thought he would. That is, answered in favor of a strong conservative bent and reasonable age, and the equivalent of it doesn't matter on everything else. The result was Priscilla Owen. It may not be as accurate, but it was more fun than monitoring market forces.
10.3.2005 1:06am
Jay Goodman Tamboli (mail) (www):
Jeremy: I guess I was too general in my comment that no one betting knew anything substantive. What I meant was that there's a certain amount of knowledge I think everyone knows, such as that certain possible nominees fit President Bush's judicial philosophy, or that certain nominees might be better political moves. I think there's probably a consensus of 5-10 people who are likely nominees. Beyond that, though, I assume most people are guessing. That is, I don't think anyone betting has any knowledge that the rest of us don't. People might think the President will consider certain factors more than others think he will, but no one has inside information on whom the President is actually focusing on.
10.3.2005 1:07am
Jeremy (mail):

no one has inside information on whom the President is actually focusing on.

Again, that is a very, very poor assumption. :-)
10.3.2005 1:34am
Sam:
Larry Faria : that quiz sounds fun, but I can't find on google. Would you mind posting a link?
10.3.2005 1:38am
AF:
Jeremy, are you aware that Edith Brown Clement was trading in the 90s hours before John Roberts was announced?
10.3.2005 1:47am
BWD:
Sam: this was the quiz linked on Wonkette for selecting what candidate most matches your feelings on a good Justice.
[Quizilla]
10.3.2005 2:06am
WB:
Bashman's reporting that Harriet Miers is the pick.

Bio here.
10.3.2005 8:11am
MJ (mail):
It's Miers.

Initial thoughts: Color me underwhelmed. She may ultimately be a fine pick, but no one outside of the WH has any idea about her approach to judging.

I would have vastly preferred a bona fide conservative heavyweight like Luttig. Base will be ambivalent. Dems will charge cronyism/unqualified.

Not the President's finest moment IMHO, but the pick may improve over time if she proves to be the real deal.
10.3.2005 8:32am
Phil (mail):
Harriet Miers
At least she is niether a Harvard grad nor a federal appellate judge--some diversity at last
10.3.2005 8:38am
WB:
Is this an echo of the Clement rumors that circulated before the Roberts nomination?

I guess we find out in 20 minutes.
10.3.2005 8:42am
Jeremy (mail):
AF:

Are you aware that the fact that Clement was in the high 90s is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not insiders use the market? Who says that those trading with insider info do it enough to move the market very much? They have a motive to keep their participation quiet, since the gambling sites are illegal and would certainly get them fired. Also, who says that those trading with insider info don't give FALSE TIPS to promote other candidates to make their own trades more valuable? The group of people who CAN move the market has a lot of overlap with the group of people who would have the requisite insider info to make money.

MJ:

My thoughts exactly, buddy. Bush has screwed the pooch on this one. Conservatives might as well sit this one out. (I certainly plan to, unless we get a lot of good info about Miers.) Conservatives just don't have much of a reason to be Republicans these days.
10.3.2005 8:51am
Jeremy (mail):
Let me add one quick thing: if the Democrats charge that Miers is unqualified and there's inappropriate cronyism here, I think they'll probably be right. The fact that a super-hardcore conservative like me thinks that is very, very bad for Mrs. Miers.

The most irksome thing about this whole deal is that WHATEVER racial or gender category you want, conservatives have a nominee for you. You want a woman? Williams, Jones, Owen, or Brown. You want a Hispanic? Estrada, Alito. Etc.

There is no doubt that a man with a resume identical to Harriet Miers would never have gotten anywhere close to the Supreme Court of the United States. Hell, my legal resume is better than hers. If Bush was so intent on picking a woman, why did he pick one with so many negatives? Yeah, she MIGHT be a conservative once she gets on the bench, but I'm not wasting my time and money to try to get someone like that confirmed. I suspect many, many conservatives will feel the same way (we're robots, you know).
10.3.2005 8:58am
anonymous coward:
"Who says that those trading with insider info do it enough to move the market very much? They have a motive to keep their participation quiet, since the gambling sites are illegal and would certainly get them fired."

So you're saying they'd risk their jobs to earn a couple hundred dollars (because earning any more would be too suspicious)? I suspect the few people who know prior to an announcement are too busy to pick up the pennies lying on the road.
10.3.2005 9:19am
Neal R. (mail):
How did TradeSports rate Miers?
10.3.2005 10:53am
AF:
Jeremy, if insiders trade but not enough to move the market, who cares?
10.3.2005 11:07am