On Tuesday, I predicted that John Roberts will be easily confirmed (see here and here). Today, Richard Cohen, a reasonably influential left-of-center pundit, agrees in the Washington Post, but his reasoning is bizarre:

Another hanging chad has dropped. His name is John G. Roberts Jr., and he undoubtedly will turn out to be opposed to abortion rights, affirmative action, an expansive view of federal powers and a reading of the Constitution that takes a properly suspicious view of the state’s embrace of religion. In these and other matters — the death penalty, for instance — he is expected to substantially reflect the views of George W. Bush, the man who nominated him to the Supreme Court, because that was what the election of 2000 and its sequel were all about. You hang enough chads, and you get to change the Supreme Court…

It seems to me that it is the Democratic Party that has a problem. It can either come to terms with reality or appear, to much of the country, both petulant and in the grip of special interests, particularly the pro-choice lobby. In effect, the fate of this nominee was settled back in the year 2000 when Florida, for better or for worse, squinted hard and pronounced George W. Bush its winner. The chads have spoken.

What does the 2000 election have to do with Roberts’ nomination? If John Kerry had won in November, he would be appointing O’Connor’s replacement right now. And the fact that Bush won both elections doesn’t mean he gets to put whoever he wants on the Court. What a dumb column.