Great podcast! Will was speculating about the fact of the auction lowering the market price. As stated in the opinion, the assessed value of the the Pungs' home prior to the auction was $194,400 and 18 months after the auction (during which it sold for only $76,000) it indeed sold on the open market for $195,000. As pointed out there, the process of the auction is pretty terrible and laborious for buyers, requiring cash purchases in particular. It seems clear to me that is what is limiting the sale price, and not any sort of priced-in risk because of the fact the owners did not pay taxes.
It would be an easy project to look at, assessed priced, auction prices, and post-auction sale prices and see how many terrible cases there are that drag down the average but if the Pung's house is any guide, the market price of risk ought to be low. Based on this case alone, for market price of risk to make sense as the explanation for the low auction prices there would need to be more than one worthless property for every Pung's that is bought at a 60% discount and sold shortly after sold for assessed value.
What stood out to me about the Hawaii law was that it seemed designed to frustrate any effective way (eg digital registry) for gun carriers to learn where they were allowed without public (and potentially unpopular) signage. Might have been a way to reach the result on a tiers of scrutiny style approach.
Interesting that you've started to opine on political term takeaways and phrased it something the long the lines of: Divided Argument listeners will all think the court is super conservative with all these 6-3 party line decisions, but the broader public might think the court isn't very conservative/maga because Trump might lose on his three biggest political priorities.
I'm sure Trump will be mad about all losses, but I'm not even confident I can say he's actually losing on his biggest political priorities if he wins on TPS and Remain in Mexico, but loses on birthright citizenship. Ditto Cook vs Wilcox and Humphries in general. Regardless, it will be quite notable if any of the 3 who agreed with Trump on tariffs (Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito) agree with Trump across the board on the remaining decisions.
Trump doesn't have policy goals he has tantrums and trying to understand him as if what he cared about was policy is always going involve a kind of reconstruction. If we engage in thar reconstruction -- as long as he losses in birthright citizenship it seems fair to me to say he lost in the most central/biggest cases.
Yes, if we count the number of policies his administration appealed to the court he might have won on a majority of those (dunno) but not clear that tells us about anything but how inclined the administration is to appeal likely losers.
Great podcast! Will was speculating about the fact of the auction lowering the market price. As stated in the opinion, the assessed value of the the Pungs' home prior to the auction was $194,400 and 18 months after the auction (during which it sold for only $76,000) it indeed sold on the open market for $195,000. As pointed out there, the process of the auction is pretty terrible and laborious for buyers, requiring cash purchases in particular. It seems clear to me that is what is limiting the sale price, and not any sort of priced-in risk because of the fact the owners did not pay taxes.
It would be an easy project to look at, assessed priced, auction prices, and post-auction sale prices and see how many terrible cases there are that drag down the average but if the Pung's house is any guide, the market price of risk ought to be low. Based on this case alone, for market price of risk to make sense as the explanation for the low auction prices there would need to be more than one worthless property for every Pung's that is bought at a 60% discount and sold shortly after sold for assessed value.
What stood out to me about the Hawaii law was that it seemed designed to frustrate any effective way (eg digital registry) for gun carriers to learn where they were allowed without public (and potentially unpopular) signage. Might have been a way to reach the result on a tiers of scrutiny style approach.
Interesting that you've started to opine on political term takeaways and phrased it something the long the lines of: Divided Argument listeners will all think the court is super conservative with all these 6-3 party line decisions, but the broader public might think the court isn't very conservative/maga because Trump might lose on his three biggest political priorities.
I'm sure Trump will be mad about all losses, but I'm not even confident I can say he's actually losing on his biggest political priorities if he wins on TPS and Remain in Mexico, but loses on birthright citizenship. Ditto Cook vs Wilcox and Humphries in general. Regardless, it will be quite notable if any of the 3 who agreed with Trump on tariffs (Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito) agree with Trump across the board on the remaining decisions.
Trump doesn't have policy goals he has tantrums and trying to understand him as if what he cared about was policy is always going involve a kind of reconstruction. If we engage in thar reconstruction -- as long as he losses in birthright citizenship it seems fair to me to say he lost in the most central/biggest cases.
Yes, if we count the number of policies his administration appealed to the court he might have won on a majority of those (dunno) but not clear that tells us about anything but how inclined the administration is to appeal likely losers.
My point was meant to be more about the takeaway about individual justices rather than the court as a whole.
Ahh, fair enough. Yes that would be interesting.