Markets
Will Democrats propose a Supreme Court overhaul bill and hold a vote on it by December 31, 2026?
Yes0%No0%
Loading...
About this market
This market resolves to Yes if a proposal to overhaul the Supreme Court, including adding justices or limiting their terms, is formally introduced as a bill in either the House of Representatives or the Senate and a vote is held on it by December 31, 2026. The proposal must include changes such as increasing the number of justices or altering term limits.
Rules
- Market closes at 12/31/2026.
- Logic weighted resolution applies.
I really doubt Democrats are going to push for a Supreme Court overhaul before the end of the year. The atmosphere is so charged right now, and they probably have bigger issues to tackle. The price feels way too optimistic; they need to focus on winning back voters, not risking it all on a contentious bill.
Rationale:The comment expresses skepticism about the likelihood of a Supreme Court overhaul bill being proposed by Democrats, which is a relevant perspective. While the assertion about the charged atmosphere and focus on voter issues is reasonable, it lacks specific evidence to support the claim, leading to a score of 70 for Fact Check. The comment is mostly free of logical fallacies and directly addresses the market question, resulting in high scores for No Fallacies and Relevance. The emotional appeal is present but balanced with logical reasoning, justifying the scores in Logic/Emotion.
if they couldn't get anything done before, why would they bother now? just feels like more talk without action, and the market's pricing this too high.
Rationale:The comment raises a valid point about past inaction, which is a reasonable observation but lacks specific evidence to support the claim that Democrats won't act now. It is relevant to the market question, as it discusses the likelihood of legislative action, but it leans slightly on emotional appeal regarding skepticism. The weights reflect a balanced focus on relevance and logical consistency, with less emphasis on factual verification due to the general nature of the claims.
not sure this is happening at all, seems like too much risk for them with the midterms just behind us and they're not really in the mood for big political fights right now.
Rationale:The comment expresses skepticism about the likelihood of a Supreme Court overhaul bill being proposed, citing political risks and the recent midterms. While the concerns about political climate are valid, they are somewhat speculative, leading to a score of 70 for Fact Check. The comment is relevant to the market question and avoids major logical fallacies, justifying the weights assigned to each criterion.
honestly, the idea of a supreme court overhaul happening feels like wishful thinking at this point. while democrats might be talking about it, getting the votes necessary seems unlikely, especially with midterms just buzzing down the road and all the chaos within the party. remember how the last major proposal flopped? they need more than just talk to make this happen. the market odds don't reflect how tough it'll be to get everyone on the same page. maybe i'm just cynical, but i see this floundering before it even gets to a vote.
Rationale:The comment presents a mostly accurate perspective on the challenges Democrats face in proposing a Supreme Court overhaul, though it lacks specific evidence to support its claims, leading to a score of 70 for Fact Check. It avoids major logical fallacies, but some emotional language is present, resulting in a balanced score for Logic/Emotion. The comment is relevant to the market question, discussing the likelihood of a proposal and vote, but it leans slightly on personal sentiment, justifying the weights assigned.
i can't believe this market is pricing in such a slim chance for this to happen. the democrats have been talking about court reform for ages, but are they actually going to put a bill up for vote? i mean, they might want to if they're trying to appeal to younger voters, but it's not like they've had a great track record with bold moves lately. i'm thinking the odds of them actually pulling the trigger on this are way lower than what this market suggests. maybe 20% tops? but who knows, they might be feeling the heat closer to election time.
Rationale:The comment presents a mix of accurate observations about the Democrats' historical stance on court reform and their potential motivations, but lacks specific evidence to support the claim about the market's pricing. It does not contain major logical fallacies, but it does rely somewhat on speculation regarding future actions. The weights reflect a balanced focus on relevance and logical reasoning, given the speculative nature of the comment.
i'm really skeptical about this one. even if they propose something, getting everybody on board is gonna be tough. prices seem way too optimistic to me.
Rationale:The comment expresses skepticism about the likelihood of a Supreme Court overhaul bill being proposed and passed, which is a relevant concern. However, it lacks specific factual support for the claims made, leading to a mixed score for Fact Check. The comment does not contain major logical fallacies but relies somewhat on emotional skepticism, hence the balanced weights favoring relevance and logical soundness over emotional appeal.
nah, this seems like a long shot rn. they might talk big, but actually getting something done? đ€ too much drama in congress.
Rationale:The comment expresses skepticism about the likelihood of Democrats proposing and voting on a Supreme Court overhaul bill, but it lacks specific factual support for its claims, leading to a mixed score for Fact Check. The comment is somewhat relevant to the market question but relies heavily on emotional appeal and generalizations about Congress, resulting in lower scores for Logic/Emotion balance. The weights reflect a focus on the comment's logical structure and relevance rather than factual accuracy, given its speculative nature.
not sure why the price is so high on this, there's like zero consistency in their strategy nowadays. feels like wishful thinking more than actual planning.
Rationale:The comment expresses skepticism about the Democrats' strategy, but it lacks specific factual claims or evidence to support its assertions, leading to a lower Fact Check score. It contains some emotional language, indicating a reliance on feelings rather than a structured argument, which affects the Logic/Emotion balance. The weights reflect a focus on the logical consistency of the argument and its relevance to the market question, given the comment's speculative nature.
if they really wanted to, they could have done it already, right? now it feels like a fantasy just thrown around at this point. also, what's up with the low odds, like do people forget how much they love drama in politics?
Rationale:The comment expresses skepticism about the likelihood of a Supreme Court overhaul bill being proposed and voted on, but it lacks specific factual support for its claims, leading to a low Fact Check score. It contains some emotional appeal regarding political drama, which affects the Logic/Emotion balance. The weights reflect a focus on emotional reasoning and relevance to the market question, but the lack of concrete evidence and logical structure lowers the overall scores.
pricing is genuinely a coinflip but ok đ
Rationale:Scoring temporarily unavailable.