I'm not the only one with a sense of deja vu. Duke law professor Erwin Chemerinsky writes of the Roberts confirmation debate, "the parallels to the fight over Bork are striking." Both Bork and Roberts were nominated to replace "swing" justices (Powell and O'Connor, respectively); both have "impeccable academic and professional qualifications"; and both are quite conservative. For this reason, Chemerinsky maintains, " Democrats must oppose Roberts." The last point is where Chemerinsky and I disagree.

[NOTE: This post has been corrected. I originally wrote Chemerinsky is a professor at USC -- as he was during the 1980s -- when he's actually at Duke. This was an error, and the text has been revised accordingly.]