In The New York Times Book Review, David Herbert Donald, the Pultizer Prize-winning historian and author of the recent bestseller Lincoln, reviews William Rehnquist's new book on the disputed presidential election of 1876 and notices a few things about Rehnquist's skills as a historian:

There is no evidence that his study involved any digging into the original sources, like the richly rewarding Rutherford B. Hayes papers or the Samuel J. Tilden papers. Indeed, ''Centennial Crisis'' does not draw on some of the best secondary literature: C. Vann Woodward's ''Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction'' (1966) is cited in the bibliography, but the text makes no reference to that pioneering study, which showed how economic forces, especially powerful railroads, helped shape the election outcome. Perhaps Roy Morris's rollicking ''Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876'' (2003) appeared too recently to attract Rehnquist's attention, but Keith Ian Polakoff's ''Politics of Inertia: The Election of 1876 and the End of Reconstruction,'' the most insightful analysis of the political background, has been available since 1973.

If this is how well Rehnquist researches his books, how careful and conscientious do you think he is when he's doing his day job? Oh, wait -- I guess we already know the answer to that question, don't we?