Editing Openai/69668f73-ea68-800d-ac56-44a64b19dae4 (section)

=== Assistant: This is a really important modifier, and you’re right to surface it — because it shifts the story the justices are impl… ===
This is a really important modifier, and you’re right to surface it — because it shifts the story the justices are implicitly reacting to, even if they never say it that way.

Let’s be careful and disciplined about how (and how much) it actually moves the handicap.

==== Not in a sentimental way — but yes, in a structural / fairness way. ====

The Court (especially the liberals, and also Roberts/Barrett) is sensitive to:
* Asymmetric power
* Asymmetric access to proof
* Situations where formal rules systematically favor the powerful over the vulnerable
* Situations where procedural doctrines become shields for strategic wrongdoing

A “tiny innovator vs large generic” frame maps onto that concern much more naturally than “Big Pharma vs scrappy generic.”

So this nudges the liberals toward sympathy for Amarin’s position, if the story is presented that way.

But: sympathy does not equal cert votes.

==== ### ====

This matters most to her.

She is highly sensitive to:
* Disparities of power
* Situations where formal law entrenches advantage
* Outcomes that “feel” unjust

A tiny company being wiped out by a larger one exploiting regulatory loopholes is a narrative that resonates with her.

So this likely moves her probability up somewhat.

===== Also sensitive to: =====
* Power imbalance
* Access to justice
* Asymmetric information

She is likely to worry about Twombly/Iqbal being used to block claims precisely when plaintiffs cannot plead facts they do not yet have access to.

This fact pattern helps Amarin with her too.

===== She is the hardest case. =====

She will think:
* Is this story real or just advocacy?
* Is this a systemic pattern or a one-off?
* Will a rule written for this case cause trouble elsewhere?
* Is this a good vehicle?

She will discount emotional valence and focus on rule quality.

So the “tiny company almost destroyed” story has much less effect on her than on the other two.

==== This actually reduces bloc cohesion, not increases it. ====

Why?

Because:
* Sotomayor and Jackson are pulled toward the equities,
* Kagan is pulled toward institutional concerns,
* And those point in different directions here.

So instead of “three liberals line up because this feels unfair,” you get:
* Sotomayor maybe yes,
* Jackson leaning yes,
* Kagan on the fence or leaning no because of vehicle/rule concerns.

That lowers the chance of a clean 3-vote bloc.

==== Let’s do it explicitly. ====

Before:
* p(Sotomayor yes) ≈ 0.35
* p(Jackson yes) ≈ 0.35
* p(Kagan yes) ≈ 0.25

Now with the “tiny company wiped out” modifier:
* p(Sotomayor yes) ≈ 0.45
* p(Jackson yes) ≈ 0.45
* p(Kagan yes) ≈ 0.25 (unchanged)

But correlation is low.

So probability all three vote yes ≈ 0.45 × 0.45 × 0.25 ≈ 5%.

Before it was maybe 3%.

So yes, it moves the needle — but not dramatically.

And it does not create a reliable bloc.

==== Slightly: ====
* Roberts cares about institutional legitimacy and fairness optics — he doesn’t want the Court to be seen as enabling corporate bullying.
* Barrett is sensitive to statutory coherence and fairness.

But neither of them is likely to grant cert just because Amarin is small.

It helps at the margin, not at the core.

==== Your new factor: ====

: 

Does:
* Increase sympathy for Amarin among Sotomayor and Jackson
* Slightly increase their likelihood of wanting review
* Make Hikma’s position feel less attractive as a matter of equity

But it does not:
* Create a cohesive liberal bloc
* Override vehicle concerns
* Overcome the Court’s reluctance to take messy, fact-bound, procedural cases

So it shifts probabilities modestly, not structurally.

Your overall conclusion remains the same:

: 

That’s the honest adjustment.