Did Scott have a good reason to believe that he would win his case? What political events changed this?

The argument Scott used was that because he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal, he could never again be an enslaved person. He did have reason to believe he would win because this was a doctrine that was recognized in common law for centuries in Europe.

in mcculloch v. maryland (1819) the supreme court ruled that congress had implied powers under the necessary and proper clause of article i, section 8 of the constitution to create the second bank of the united states and that the state of maryland lacked the power to tax the bank.

gibbons v. ogden, (1824), was a landmark decision in which the supreme court of the united states held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to congress by the commerce clause of the united states constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation.

euruxeudduducududuf