RGB Replacement ASAP!

https://www.presidentialelectionodds.net/supreme-court/

SCOTUS – Supreme Court Justice Betting Odds
supreme-court-logo.jpg
With political betting still in its infancy within the modern sports betting market, opportunities for betting on the next Supreme Court justice appointment have not emerged much until now. SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg’s unfortunate passing may usher in the first significant Supreme Courte odds action to date. It is an explosive topic due to the fact that this is an emotionally charged election year taking place in the midst of unprecedented turmoil across the United States, the likes of which has not been faced before.

Supreme Court Justices have the highest authority in the nation, are appointed for life, and can shift past and present cases to fit their own and/or their nominating President’s ideologies. When a seat opens for a new Supreme Court Justice, the President may propose his/her own pick, which the Senate then votes upon. The seating of a new Supreme Court Justice extends beyond the term of the President who appointed them. Therefore, new Justice decisions and appointments become one of the most lasting legacies of any President.

Top Sites For Betting On Supreme Court Justice Picks
Sportsbook Bonus Rating USA Visit Site Review
logo_bovada.jpg
50% Max $250
5stars.png
flag_usa.png
Visit Site Review
logo_betOnline.jpg
50% Max $1,000
4stars.png
flag_usa.png
Visit Site Review
MB.jpg
100% Max $1,000
4stars.png
flag_usa.png
Visit Site Review
BM-eu.jpg
100% Max $300
4stars.png
flag_usa.png
Visit Site Review
2020 Supreme Court Odds On Who Will Replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
With Justice Ginsburg’s passing being so very recent, oddsmakers have not yet created odds on her replacement. They are also probably waiting to see how the Trump administration handles the situation and if they will indeed choose to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg during an election year, something that has not happened since 1932.

We have included the list of names that President Trump has recently stated he is considering for Supreme Court nominations. Once the odds are available, we will post them below. We expect multiple prop bets to also be associated with this should the process move forward, such as odds on whether the Senate will hold confirmation hearings for a SCOTUS justice or will the Democrats take measures to block the process due to it being an election year.

Supreme Court Odds
Odds On Who Trump’s Next Supreme Court Nominee Will Be
After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, and with the Senate’s approval, Gorsuch became a Supreme Court Justice in 2017. With the retirement of SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy, Trump had the opportunity to appoint yet another Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, during his first term as President in 2018.

With the unfortunate passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on 9/18/2020, the Trump administration has the opportunity to nominate a third individual to fill a vacant seat on the nation’s highest court. The President has directed the Senate to prepare to vote on his nomination despite the fact that it is an election year, something that is causing a great deal of upset throughout the Democratic party.

When prop bets surface regarding the likelihood of a Supreme Court Justice appointment occurring in 2020, we will post that information here.

2020 Supreme Court Justice Nomination
With Justice Ginsburg’s seating becoming vacant during Trump’s administration, he now has another opportunity to appoint yet another Republican candidate. He had recently updated his existing list of potential candidates to add three new names: Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, and Josh Hawley.

Supreme Court Nominee Confirmation Odds
There are no odds available at this moment for a Justice confirmation. However, we will update this information if odds appear.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Just a couple comments, if they fall within my remaining half cup of coffee:

In short, my view, is that it is just another aspect of the Founders failing to see (or rather being aghast that some things would be allowed) the explosion of judicial power and thus did not foresee the need to micro-manage certain areas.

The founders did a crackerjack job in some areas of judicial power -including limits- but it tended to be focused on areas where they had been abused by King George and his judges. Thus when they thought about judicial power they thought about and focused on abuses of search and seizure, right to confront witnesses, double jeopardy, habeus corpus, etc.

At the same time they were pretty confident that the legislative branches of government were being vested with all the important powers (unless specifically assigned to the president.) and it was their view that they very intentionally were making the judiciary the weakest of the three branches so they were not to be feared nor could they become controlling. In the federalist papers, Hamilton, among others emphasized that there was not much that the judiciary could do because they did not have the power of the purse, did not have any control over the military, or command any law enforcement entities. And if they got rowdy, the legislative branch would just over-ride them.

So much for that expectation. The rest is history. In no way did they envision and environment where the president and congress would be feverishly watching the court for their approval on everything and anything day in and day out. They did allow that the court might jump in on truly egregious matters where congress or the president had gone off the reservation in ways that could not be remedied by the people electing someone else. The power of the judiciary increased very early and exponentially when Marbury v. Madison became the law of the land - ie. the case that first ruled that the Supreme Court could overturn an Act of Congress and has just grown like kudzu since.

Anyway, roundabout answer to why - in my mind- they did not focus on some of the details of the structure of the Supreme Court. They thought that they had designed a constitutional system where the Court would be the least powerful rather than the most powerful so they did not lean into some areas. It happens. As with the electoral college. For a long time it was not an issue for normal people. But knowing now how people will try to dick with it, they might have locked some things down more tightly.

In regard to Joe trying to pack the court, I doubt it. That always gets messy everytime it is tried or talked about. Creates a lot of heat but no clear winners so it goes away with the party proposing it just looking like political hacks.

More likely they would sneak up on it a bit by proposing terms limits or age limits which might even get bipartisan support especially if it only applies to future judges not current justices. Ironically, Demented Joe and Ruthie might be examples of why their would be support for that.

The dems would pack the court if they could without having to take the heat. Unfortunately they do not know how to do that. Not to beat this to death, but most of the action is at the lower courts which serve as gateways or roadblocks for cases, and Obama left 170 lower court positions open which Trump is filling. You would think that if they had a real boner for having more judicial power they would have taken care of bidness.
More...
Did you write all that yourself or did you cut and paste?!
If you wrote that, I mean a quick search is easy enough, but it answered my question so I don't care.... but Tree if you penned that yourself, you're a lawyer right?
I mean if that's your prose.... mucho respect.
Either way, thanks for the answer.
 
Wallet said:
Heard the other day the #1 selling brew at Starbucks was the Grande Double caramel coffee vodka valium mocha
More...


Speaking of Starbucks:

I saw a sidebar on google news that was factchecking- probably is still there- the rumor that Target employees are wearing Black Lives Matters shirts now. They said that was not true.

But I will tell ya what is true. I was over at one of the local Starbucks last week and the employees are all wearing shirts that say BLACK PARTNERS on the back. No lie. Could say some other things too. I did not do a total checking-out. I shouldn't say "all" because some there were not so probably it is a choice for them or something. I don't know. They do not do anything that is not approved at corporate so it is some kind of approved thing.

Weird stuff. I am a white people. Where's the love for me? I actually pay when I come in rather than just to use the bathroom and sue you later.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
Speaking of Starbucks:

I saw a sidebar on google news that was factchecking- probably is still there- the rumor that Target employees are wearing Black Lives Matters shirts now. They said that was not true.

But I will tell ya what is true. I was over at one of the local Starbucks last week and the employees are all wearing shirts that say BLACK PARTNERS on the back. No lie. Could say some other things too. I did not do a total checking-out. I shouldn't say "all" because some there were not so probably it is a choice for them or something. I don't know. They do not do anything that is not approved at corporate so it is some kind of approved thing.

Weird stuff. I am a white people. Where's the love for me? I actually pay when I come in rather than just to use the bathroom and sue you later.
More...

I sometimes wonder if we’ll actually make it through 2020 intact. Things are getting bizarre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top