In his review, Adrian Wooldridge notes the points you score against RJN and his associates regarding the infamous judicial usurpation symposium in First Things in 1996. As I was reading that section of your book this morning (on the bike in the clubhouse here--I get my reading in when and where I can), the following set of questions occurred to me.

What did you think of the controversy surrounding this symposium when you went to work for FT? Did you then hold the view that you now hold?

If you held the view you now hold, why did you accept a position at FT? Had the views of the principal protagonists changed in such a way as to overcome any obstacles to your employment?

If those views had in fact changed in such a way as to make your employment unproblematical for you, why not mention those second thoughts and reconsiderations in your book? (Perhaps I just haven’t gotten there yet.)

Or were you simply unaware of this apparently notorious controversy when you signed on at FT?

Sorry I haven’t finished the book yet. I have a few other things on my plate, including Governor Sonny Perdue’s appearance at Oglethorpe this coming Tuesday and a book review due at CRB in less than two weeks.