My friend, Publius
As many of you know, Publius and I have, on more than one occasion, engaged in robust debates over the proper method of interpreting the Constitution and the role of the judiciary in our tripartite system of government. What you may not know is that Publius started the excellent (and now defunct) blog, “Legal Fiction,” in part, to address the originalist/textualist arguments made on this blog, before moving on to the popular liberal blog, “Obsidian Wings.” You may also not be aware that I’ve known Publius’s identity for quite some time, and that we’re actually friends (notwithstanding our profound political, philosophical, and jurisprudential differences).
Well, today, Ed Whelan of NRO’s Bench Memos–a person whose work I greatly admire–revealed Publius’s identity to the world because of a heated debate between the two of them. Now, I realize that there are those who strongly oppose pseudonymous blogging, and I understand and respect that viewpoint.* Nevertheless, what Mr. Whelan did was in poor form. He had no idea why Publius chose to keep his identity a secret, and, as it turns out, he had some very good reasons for doing so. I can understand and appreciate Mr. Whelan being frustrated by what he considered to be unfair personal attacks by Publius; but “politics ain’t beanbag” (as Whelan knows all too well), and this kind of disproportionate response to harsh critcism is, quite frankly, beneath him.
Mr. Whelan owes my friend, Publius, an apology. This isn’t about who’s right or wrong on the merits of the arguments being debated, it’s about basic decency. Mr. Whelan cannot undo the damage that he has already inflicted on Publius, but he can and should admit that he exercised extremely poor judgment and acted in a manner unworthy of someone with his impeccable professional credentials.
*For those of you who are new to SA, my identity is hardly a mystery. I outed myself at the conclusion of a two-year federal-appellate clerkship. I did so, however, on my own terms; even though several other bloggers were aware of my identity prior to that time. These bloggers, conservatives and liberals alike, were gracious enough to respect the decision I had made to keep my identity a secret. I only wish Mr. Whelan had afforded that same courtesy to Publius (notwithstanding their heated disagreements).
Update: Here are some other reactions: James Joyner; Ed Morrissey; Althouse; Michael Krauss, Dan Riehl, Dylan Matthews, Steve Benen, Deuce Geary, Anon Liberal, Tom Maguire, David Schraub, R.S. McCain, Donald at American Catholic, Jay Anderson, Cranky Con, Matt Franck (Whelan’s co-blogger at Bench Memos), and Rick Moran. And there’s more here from Mr. Whelan. Publius also has some closing comments here. Hilzoy too.
Update II: Walter Olson over at Point of Law weighs in with a thoughtful post here. As does Joe Gandelman.
Update III: Professor Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy, and former guest blogger here at SA, adds his two cents here.

T.R. Elliott,
I’m not sure that anonymity is the issue here. I’ve blogged and contributed both anonymously and under my actual name. My contributions didn’t differ one iota. I really think this is a non-issue.
It’s not a non-issue for publius. He’s acknowledged that his anonymity probably caused him to be more snarky.
Joel, you’d be interested to know that I’m operating here under a pseudonym for reasons of my own. However, I will say this: I do find the effects of using my actual identity to be somewhat chilling. I find my authorial voice is actually more true to myself than if I posted under my real name. If I did not use a false name I would subject myself to self-censorship, not only of some of the more robust language, but in terms of revealing my core beliefs. I’d prefer that friends and colleagues not be able to google my name and learn all the things I have said in public. That might create… let’s say it could simply cause difficulties.