| ▲ | danielmarkbruce a day ago |
| White House legal opinions aren't any better than other legal opinions. Opinions are not "information". |
|
| ▲ | burkaman a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| I understand your position but I disagree. If I were trying to predict whether the government is going to win in court, I think reading what the government's own lawyers think about the case would be valuable. If it were possible to pay for this I think people would, that's why I think it is material. Some random person's opinion is not relevant information, but the opinion of people directly involved in a case is. |
| |
| ▲ | danielmarkbruce a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That's fine, to each their own on trying to make predictions. I did try to predict it, did it accurately (along with many others, this wasn't the hardest thing ever), and wouldn't have had any interest in any internal memo. It's a public arena on things like this. I don't think even the justices themselves have "material inside information" until a little ways through the hearing, and people are trying to predict the outcome well before that. On the surface that might sound absurd, but it isn't. | | | |
| ▲ | Maxatar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes it absolutely is valuable to have access to expert opinions and people do pay money to acquire opinions from experts. But expert advice, even if material, is not the same as insider information. | | |
| ▲ | Detrytus a day ago | parent [-] | | Well, I think context matters here a lot: If you go to a random lawyer in Wyoming and ask them to write "expert opinion" then what you'll get would probably be something standard, written by a junior associate, or maybe even produced by ChatGPT. If the White House orders "expert opinion" on potential Supreme Court ruling then the chances are that the expert asked to prepare it is someone who plays golf with some of the SCOTUS judges. So those two "expert opinions" might not bear the same weight. | | |
| ▲ | Maxatar a day ago | parent [-] | | The quality of an opinion has no bearing as to whether that opinion is insider information. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | LPisGood a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The non-publicly known strategy they intend to use in court is “information” |
|
| ▲ | vkou a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is a lawyer working on a case allowed to short the stock of his client? Why not? (Hint: it creates a perverse incentive to see your side lose the legal argument for your own personal gain.) And in this case, it's the actual secretary doing it. Who has significant influence on the outcome of the case (largely in the negative - nothing he can do can make the government more likely to win it, but stuff he did has the capacity to make the government more likely to lose it.) |
|
| ▲ | dboreham a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The Lebowski conjecture. |
