Nomination Predictions
Tom’s Jan-Greenburg-prompted prediction that the President will nominate Judge Alito comes on something of a hot streak: Way back in November, he predicted that John Roberts would be the most likely nominee to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist; and immediately after her nomination, he went out on a limb that few others did at the time, and predicted Harriet Miers would not be confirmed.
While we’re at it, permit me to sheepishly add that I, too, predicted a Roberts nomination back in November (in a comment to Tom’s post, which apparently no longer exists online), and again in May –- see comments here — one of the rare times in my life when I’ve publicly made a correct prediction.
The point here isn’t to toot the blog’s horn. I wish I could say that the Roberts predictions reflected some great foresight or acumen on our parts — but the truth is that, once Judge Gonzales became Attorney General, Roberts was the logical and obvious choice for this Administration, basically for the reasons Tom gave in his initial post (reasons that seem fairly obvious in retrospect, now that everyone has seen more of Roberts).
For what it’s worth, in that same prediction back in May, Alito was my second choice. Again, that was only because it’s who I would pick if I were in the President’s shoes and shared what I assume are his commitments and interests. So, perhaps I’ll be fortunate to go two-for-two. Or two-for-three, anyway: After Roberts’s confirmation, I insisted (to all who would listen) that the President would nominate a White House Counsel to replace Justice O’Connor: a choice based on loyalty, trust, sticking-with-what-he-knows, and the assurance that the Counsel would be a safe vote in favor of Executive authority, especially on issues of national security. I was right about everything except which White House Counsel Bush would choose. (I also predicted Astros in six.) Oh well.
I guess whether Tom’s prediction about Miers turned out to be true depends on how accurately you represent his precdiction. He predicted that she would be rejected by the Senate, which turned out not to be true.
It’s even more annoyingly obtuse to say the same about Roberts on the grounds that his prediction was that if Rehnquist resigned Roberts would be the choice. The reality, of course, was not a Rehnquist resignation but an O’Connor resignation followed by an unexpected Rehnquist death.
So, technically speaking, he was wrong in both predictions if you focus on the details, even if he was right about the general sense of what would happen.
Comment by Jeremy Pierce — October 29, 2005 @ 9:49 am
Jeremy Pierce is being hyper-technical. I’ll give Tom credit for two correct predictions.
Although the Miers nomination never came up for a vote, it was becoming very clear that she was unlikely to be confirmed. If questions from the Senators are so daunting that the nominee withdraws in order to avoid an actual vote, I count that as “rejection by the Senate.”
Similarly, Tom’s prediction was that John Roberts would be chosen to replace the Chief Justice. How the seat came to be open (death, rather than retirement) was not a salient part of the prediction. I’ll score that one in Tom’s favor, as well.
Comment by Marc Shepherd — October 29, 2005 @ 6:21 pm
Of course I was being hyper-technical. That’s why I referred to my own comment as annoyingly obtuse. There is a question about how much detail needs to be correct for a prediction to be correct, but I can’t imagine why anyone would non-jokingly make anything of it in this sort of setting. That you might assume it to be a serious criticism doesn’t strike me as very charitable.
The Senate figured in the official explanation, but most people aren’t accepting that explanation. The explanation they’re accepting is less directly based on the Senate, though the hope of those people was that the Senate ultimately wouldn’t approve. We can’t know that now, though.
Comment by Jeremy Pierce — October 29, 2005 @ 6:50 pm
The John Roberts’ prediction isn’t incorrect even in a technical way. TG didn’t say that John Roberts would be nominated only if Rehnquist retired. He simply predicted the outcome of a scenario which never came into existence. An if-then statement is not rendered false by the non-occurence of the “if”.
Comment by Jacob — October 29, 2005 @ 9:20 pm