Comments on: Nomination Predictions

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:20:15 +0000

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”.

By: Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:50:03 +0000

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.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:21:35 +0000

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.

By: Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:49:44 +0000

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.