Back during the Cold War, there was a little discipline called "Kremlinology". The idea was to try and see who was influential in the Soviet hierarchy. This form of analysis included things such as the number of public comments any given member of the Soviet leadership made (whether they were military or members of the Politburo. The analysts looked at who stood next to whom during the parades on Red Square, who was mentioned in articles in
Pravda and
Izvestia, who made what other public appearances, who made foreign trips and whether those trips were to places like Bulgaria or France.
It was kind of like garbology. And, in retrospect, it was often laughably wrong.
The analysts who try to predict how the Supremes will come down on an issue based on the oral arguments seem to be practicing a version of Kremlinology. And they often get it spectacularly wrong.
You want to know how the Court will rule on Prop 8 and DOMA? Wait until the rulings are handed down, most likely in June.
Until then:
2 comments:
Ah, but what would the news people talk about?
This way they get to spuze lots of stuff before they actually have to report something accurately.
w3ski
Heh. I remember Kremlinology. Entrail divination was more accurate.
Post a Comment