He hasn't gone up the professorial ladder. USC is considered superior in law to Duke by many.

Erwin C. published numerous forgettable articles in the l.a. times while he was a professor at U.S.C. He's gone up the professorial ladder to Duke. He has become more transparent in his left, left-wing politics. Prof. C. simply doesn't understand the appropriate role of an appellate judge. Moreover, he thinks all Sup Ct justices should rule politically and not according to the Constitution, if they are liberal-socialists. He supports liberal (very liberal) opportunism and activism on any court, especially the Sup. Ct. His opinions on the judicial system are fatally damaged by his hard-core Leninistic appch to politics and all courts. Judges must serve the views of those who see the courts exclusively as a tool of the socialist cum Marxism philosophy. HIs views on legal systems are worthless because his premises are, at their heart, totalitarian. He would be comfortable with the court system of China. Like his idol, L. Tribe his views are vastly overrated because his views coincide with the elites of the media and the academy. Finally, his view of Roberts simply means that only a hard-core left winger would be acceptable to him. As I said, China is the appropriate milieu for his teaching, books and articles.

So, professor Chemerinsky says, "He refused to explain his views on these and most other issues [reproductive rights, church-state issues, etc.] at the confirmation hearings."

Well, of course, he didn't explain his views. It's none of our business whether he is pro-life or anti-life, etc. The Senate does not and did not have the right to ask him about his POLITICAL views. Many liberal Democrats did ask him these questions and Roberts had to remind them that these were not proper questions. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will not be asked to find legal legitimization for his political views. Instead, his role is to look at the law and rule whether those citizens bringing a case were following the law or not. He clearly indicated during the hearings that he will rule against his own friends if that is what the law says:

"If the law says that the little guy should win, then the little guy will win. If the law says that the big guy should win, then the big guy should win."

That is the only question that matters and that is what a judge is for. Whether or not he ever had a membership in the Federalist Society, collected pro-life license plates, subscribed to MAD Magazine or wore non-matching socks is of supreme unimportance. I'm pretty sure he is pro-life and voted conservative in every election. Who cares? He will rule against his own friends, if that is what the law says. What more can one want?

Enough talk about confirmation. When will the distinguished professor let fly with one of the many agonizing puns that his Con Law lectures at SC were famous for in the mid-80's?