Row 3108

Row ID: 3108 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 3108 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

Today, the Supreme Court heard *Trump v. Anderson* (1), a.k.a. the Colorado case that decided that Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the Colorado Republican primary ballot. In the past, pundits and legal analysts have used oral arguments to make predictions about how the court will rule.

Often this takes the form of legal experts forming subjective opinions, and in this case, the broad consensus among such experts appears to be that the Court appeared much more receptive to the arguments presented by Trump’s legal team than the Colorado voters’ legal team (2, 3). However, some researchers have taken more objective approaches to tackle the same question, for example, by counting particular features of oral argument (such as number of questions, sentiment analysis, interruptions, etc.) and applying some kind of model (4, 5).

My questions are:

* In the past, what methods have performed the best at predicting the outcome of SCOTUS cases based on oral arguments? * What do those methods say about *Trump v. Anderson*?

Sources:

1. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/08/us/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot 2. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/08/trump-supreme-court 3. https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-brings-fight-stay-ballot-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08/ 4. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-read-the-mind-of-a-supreme-court-justice/ 5. https://academic.oup.com/book/27148/chapter-abstract/196549212?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

FieldValue
text Today, the Supreme Court heard *Trump v. Anderson* (1), a.k.a. the Colorado case that decided that Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the Colorado Republican primary ballot. In the past, pundits and legal analysts have used oral arguments to make predictions about how the court will rule. Often this takes the form of legal experts forming subjective opinions, and in this case, the broad consensus among such experts appears to be that the Court appeared much more receptive to the arguments…
label r/neutralpolitics
dataType post
communityName r/NeutralPolitics
datetime 2024-02-09
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5LakwxaEdZT3QxWnpXVzRoMkhjQWhBYU1WeFRHYmFXcFRPWmRRcHYySDc3UzlhNGp6S0NDdXlVU1hiWVBuMnpCQUUtVWZnUG9fTWNqNFdkTC1iRjJvZFZnazZuWThONWM3ZnRSNWhLbjJGVVloRW89
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9Fal9CSEpHa1hyQzlOTklSUDNpUktiUWJyMlctTWYwTTFYZTdZbWdLTVVycWlrZmhzTGZhTWZMMS1QNC1zeUJubUVhLWtNNGJJUVVZdTFIdmt0MlV3bWp1WjQ4LTM2di1wNWF0RXB5SXhzQWIzcTBpOUU0WURKdEtvSVdIbE15V0JIUExZX0dPN0MyaWVRWEhfUFlEY0FMbUNEY1hDMmhUUEM3UWFfZkdvcHRNVzZfbVFhZ2tRV0NYN0h3dWJGbjMwMGpJOG1DQmdZUjVHZkk5LUpOanBxQT09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "Today, the Supreme Court heard *Trump v. Anderson* (1), a.k.a. the Colorado case that decided that Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the Colorado Republican primary ballot. In the past, pundits and legal analysts have used oral arguments to make predictions about how the court will rule. \n\nOften this takes the form of legal experts forming subjective opinions, and in this case, the broad consensus among such experts appears to be that the Court appeared much more receptive to the arguments presented by Trump’s legal team than the Colorado voters’ legal team (2, 3). However, some researchers have taken more objective approaches to tackle the same question, for example, by counting particular features of oral argument (such as number of questions, sentiment analysis, interruptions, etc.) and applying some kind of model (4, 5).\n\nMy questions are:\n\n* In the past, what methods have performed the best at predicting the outcome of SCOTUS cases based on oral arguments?\n* What do those methods say about *Trump v. Anderson*?\n\nSources:\n\n1.\thttps://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/08/us/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot\n2.\thttps://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/08/trump-supreme-court\n3.\thttps://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-brings-fight-stay-ballot-us-supreme-court-2024-02-08/\n4. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-read-the-mind-of-a-supreme-court-justice/\n5. https://academic.oup.com/book/27148/chapter-abstract/196549212?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false",
  "label": "r/neutralpolitics",
  "dataType": "post",
  "communityName": "r/NeutralPolitics",
  "datetime": "2024-02-09",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5LakwxaEdZT3QxWnpXVzRoMkhjQWhBYU1WeFRHYmFXcFRPWmRRcHYySDc3UzlhNGp6S0NDdXlVU1hiWVBuMnpCQUUtVWZnUG9fTWNqNFdkTC1iRjJvZFZnazZuWThONWM3ZnRSNWhLbjJGVVloRW89",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9Fal9CSEpHa1hyQzlOTklSUDNpUktiUWJyMlctTWYwTTFYZTdZbWdLTVVycWlrZmhzTGZhTWZMMS1QNC1zeUJubUVhLWtNNGJJUVVZdTFIdmt0MlV3bWp1WjQ4LTM2di1wNWF0RXB5SXhzQWIzcTBpOUU0WURKdEtvSVdIbE15V0JIUExZX0dPN0MyaWVRWEhfUFlEY0FMbUNEY1hDMmhUUEM3UWFfZkdvcHRNVzZfbVFhZ2tRV0NYN0h3dWJGbjMwMGpJOG1DQmdZUjVHZkk5LUpOanBxQT09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information