Simple question: If, as Chemerinsky contends, Democrats let Chief Justice Roberts "duck," did the Republicans do the same thing during the Ginsberg and Breyer hearings? I think not. Especially during the Ginsberg hearings, she refused to discuss cases, in general or specifically, that might come before the court. There was no hue and cry that she was ducking or that Republicans were letting her do so.

If what someone contends they value, as does Chemerinsky, is judicial independence isn't that negated by speaking with specificity in hearings how someone will decide a case? Each case is different and deserves to be decided on its merits. There are many variants of decisions that will come before the court. Roe v. Wade is still valid now, but this session, the court will decide the legality of "partial birth abortion," or at least one aspect of it. Surely none of the justices knows right now how they will decide this case, do they? If they do, should they not recuse themselves from the case?

Consistency in the application of one's prejudices would certainly be nice; however, I doubt Chemerinksy can, or will, do that. Democrats did not let Chief Justice Roberts duck; they gave their advise and consented because the man was qualified for the job. Unfortunately, 22 Democrats aligned themselves with the narrow political interests they hope will fund their run for the White House in 2008. THAT is the travesty of behavior exhibited by the Democrats.

I didn't used to, but I guess I agree with you guys.

If we should encourage senators to vote based on results-based outcomes on how they think judges will rule, biden and teddy and durbin and schumer were right. When the Republicans still control the senate in 2008 and a democrat is elected president, i hope you will offer these same views then...no nominee should ever be appointed unless s/he is in lockstep with the senate majority's philosophy on abortion and gay marriage.

In reality, you're simply lucky that republicans are more principled (see r.b. ginsburg, 1993). If you can onyl get ha;f your caucus to vote for john roberts, bush better nominate ashcroft or luttig and rely on those red-state democrat senators up for reelection in '06 to stop any filibuster.

I did not mean to imply that the fact that it is "politics as usual" is an excuse to throw up one's hands in resignation. I merely meant to suggest that pointing out that the Democrats did let him duck and that the Republicans, engaging in politics as usual, encouraged Roberts to do the very thing that they would decry in a liberal candidate, did not warrant Mr. Brewer's attacks of Erwin.

I agree with you that politics as usual is not an excuse. Things do need to change, on both sides of the aisle, in this regard.

Mr. Brewer, allow me to note for the record that Prof. Chemerinsky has never once descended to the level of personal attack as you have. You may be surprised to know that he is very popular at Duke Law, respected for both the quality of his teaching and the insight of his political-legal commentary. I am a student at Duke Law. And even when I disagree with him (for instance, I think his idea of what is in the "judicial mainstream" is a tad narrow), I think he is an asset to this school.

I also must disagree with DLR. Even if this is "politics as usual", that is no excuse to throw one's hands up in resignation. "Politics as usual" doesn't change until someone challenges it. In this case, Democrats were, in essence, asked to vote for or against an outline of a justice. Judge Roberts and his supporters express all the acceptable platitudes about judicial restraint, impartiality, and not being an ideological warrior....all without explaining the meaning behind the rhetoric. As is shown elsewhere on Maura Reynolds's "Decoding Judicial-Speak", Democrats and Republicans often mean different things using the same words.

The general consensus is that Roberts will be another Rehnquist. But really....who knows? So much for advice and consent.

Libel? Slander? Perhaps "MDs" should not throw around terms and comment on matters outside their area of expertise. To express an opinion, as Erwin has done here, that is contrary to someone else's opinion, does not turn it into libel, slander, or "liberal bias." It's an opinion. The problem with much of the current administration and its most ardent supporters is the rush to call any opposing viewpoint "liberal bias."

On point with this particular topic, I think it is entirely appropriate to note that the Democratic Senators let Roberts take a pass on expressing his opinion about important topics. If the tables were turned, it's entirely likely the same Democratic Senators would encourage a more liberal candidate to avoid answering questions and the Republican Senators would by crying foul and denouncing the refusal to be forthright. That's all part of the political process that, unfortunately, forces us all to take our chances on what these judges might do once appointed to the high court. It's unfortunate, but it's the way things are. Pointing it out is not libelous, slanderous, or biased.

As soon as the Dean of the Law School lets Professor Chemerinsky go, perhaps he can run for an office somewhere . . . from which vantage point he can throw out his liberal slander and libel to his constituency. Meanwhile, his words are taken to represent Duke University and I personally resent his expressed liberal bias very much. Both Mr. Alston and Mr. Bird will be turning over in their graves to learn that their good names have been associated with Professor Chemerinsky's rantings and ravings. Spencer Brewer