Linda Greenhouse: God Save the Queen?
Because she needs all the help she can get these days. Backlash and insurrection against New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse, the long reigning queen of the Supreme Court press corps, continue to grow.
For years, the courts construed 40 U.S.C. 6134 -- which forbids "loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building" -- as prohibiting criticism of Linda Greenhouse. As a result, nobody within the legal or media establishment dared breathe a harsh word about her. But now, after decades of dominance, La Greenhouse is slipping -- and increasingly vulnerable to attack.
Fueled by the success of the bestselling, critically acclaimed Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg -- ABC News's young, talented, and utterly gorgeous Supreme Court correspondent -- is challenging Greenhouse for the title of America's top Supreme Court reporter. Last month, a threatened LG tried to mount a snarky counterattack. But rather than damaging Greenburg's reputation, it merely caused SCOTUS insiders to marvel at Greenhouse's pettiness.
And now Greenburg's challenge to Greenhouse is emboldening others. Some dare to claim that the empress has no clothes. Take Adam J. White of Baker Botts, a former Sentelletubby and legal commentator. White had this to say about Linda Greenhouse, in an essay for the Weekly Standard:
The law takes the long view, and so do its chroniclers -- none more so than Linda Greenhouse, New York Times reporter and unofficial doyenne of the Supreme Court press corps. But Greenhouse's recent essay on Chief Justice Roberts exemplifies the risks of racing to write the second draft of history before the first: By attempting to turn a single case into a moment of historic importance, Greenhouse misdescribes the record of one chief justice and severely insults another.
OUCH -- and there's more. You can read the rest of the piece here.
0-for-2: Linda Greenhouse gets both Rehnquist and Roberts wrong [The Weekly Standard via How Appealing]
(29) 
lat, now you only cite to the standard...why don't you just post your republican credentials up here? There is not problem with you being a member of the grand ol party, but this is supposed to be a tabloid, not a republican party press release.
On "come on," please don't play the petty, Angry Leftist so predictably.
This post sounds more like "player hating" - Linda Greenhouse is Queen of the Hill, so let's try to push her off - than right-wing shilling (even if there is a little of the latter).
Lat is clearly envious of Greenhouse. But so is every other reporter who covers the Court.
Time to create some nicknames.
'house v. 'berg
-405
where was i petty?
angry?
leftist sure, b/c i complained that this isn't tabloid, its just plain right wing...
sincerely,
come on
I read her Week in Review piece and went to read Roberts' dissent expecting a barn burner, maybe Scalia light. It was really tame, thorough. Kinda boring.
We're learning standing in Admin law tomorrow. As my prof previewed, "If you thought exhaustion was interesting, wait til we get to standing!"
I'm with TJ.
In the same vein, it bears noting that Greenhouse isn't the only Supreme Court reporter given to unwarranted hyperbole. Lyle Denniston declares on SCOTUSBlog that today's abortion decision "surely is on a par, historically, with Roe v. Wade."
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/04/commentary_some_2.html
That's just silly. The only way an abortion decision could be "on a par, historically, with Roe v. Wade" would be one that overrules it (or something awfully close). One that doesn't even overrule Stenberg and doesn't even preclude as-applied challenges to the law at issue can hardly be placed on a level with Roe.
The White piece seems to have a couple of weak points. Most of the cases he cites he says are about jurisdiction or ripeness questions, not standing. He conflates the three issues in an effort to bolster his position that Rehnquist repeatedly faced the case Greenhouse said he never had to face. From White's description of the cases, it appears that Greenhouse is right.
Also, the D.C. tax case does not seem analogous since it does not deal with a conflict about state versus federal authority. It is about whether D.C. can tax commuters. But D.C. is not a state - it is a federal district. So it sounds like it wasn't an issue of whether Congress or a state had the power to regulate commuter taxes. If it had been Maryland's commuter tax that Congress interfered with, and Virginia tried to get involved with the suit, it would have been different.
How did Greenhouse's book on Justice Blackmun sell? Anyone know?
I wonder how real this "downfall" of Linda Greenhouse is, or whether Lat is just creating the "existence" of such an occurrence by merely saying that it is actually happening, a la Foucault.
amazing - another right winger criticizes a somewhat left of center journalist? yes, a tidewave has begun... lat you may as well be citing the comments from your last post of jan's blog.
amazing - another right winger criticizes a somewhat left of center journalist? yes, a tidewave has begun... lat, you may as well be citing the comments from your last post or jan's blog.
Greenhouse as "somewhat left of center"? Please, check the naivete at the door.
Lat seems to be trying to fully effect the cheap and tawdry Focaultian language of the rabid gossip-mongers (see, e.g. the Post's page 6), which manifestly create dramas or conflicts through the use of seemingly objective statements which are primarily based on the own "reporter's" past non-objective coverage, "inside" sources who are given auspicious adjectives (see, e.g. "well-placed"), and other devices which attempt to switch the subjective with the objective.
This might be an interesting piece, but the author lost me after he used "if only" twice in one sentence. If only he wasn't trying to emulate Greenhouse's writing style in this piece!
burg's just way too hot compared to house
Lat is exaggerating the drama here (as noted by 5:24). But many of us were surprised by the access to sources that JCG got for her book. That could not have made LG happy.
what'd JCG do for those sources?
Again, STOP THE PRESSES. Lat, a blogger, is exaggerating a story. This is shocking, shocking stuff. The nerve of that Lat.
I mean, he's talking about the 'House/'Burg battle as if it's two starlets-du-jour battling over cute-boy-du-jour. Clearly, tongue is at least slightly in cheek... [Yes, I know, insert gay joke here]
JCG's access was superb. Her writing? Not so much. I found the book awfully repetitive. The beginning and end of each chapter reiterated what a disappointment Souter was and how O'Connor and Kennedy slowly shifted left. Several anecdotes appeared in multiple chapters. It felt like it was intended as a serial publication rather than a book.
Becoming Justice Blackmun, on the other hand, was very well written. But then again, maybe LG just has better editors.
Anon @ 4:48: Greenhouse and Shapiro focus on jurisdiction in general, not just standing. "When there is a question about whether a federal court has jurisdiction to decide a case (or whether a plaintiff has standing), the question should be resolved against jurisdiction (or against standing)."
If you think the category is too broad, blame Greenhouse and Shapiro, not White.
Nina Tottenberg is the real queen.
Lat is generating interest in this blog by manufacturing a conflict, much in the way that GEICO stimulates consumer interest in their insurance products by claiming that "15 minutes could save you 15% or more" on premiums - emphasis being on COULD. Both are examples of puffery to sell a product, equally transparent and equally lame.
Nina Totenberg is a diva and a half -- obnoxious, entitled beyond belief, and quite savvy, to boot. Get on it, Lat! I have seen her refuse to hold the microphone at conferences or breakfasts or whatnot, and require the poor sap to stand beside her holding it, when everyone else previously has taken the mic on their own like an adult.
Most mass media reporting of court decisions is pretty awful. 'house and 'berg may be the one-eyed reporters in the land of the blind.
I like the picture. Greenhouse holding the mic like that with the skeptical look on her face makes her look like a real MC, like she's deciding whether or not to drop some rhymes.
You think your book Conflict reigns Supreme?
You think you’re all that with your real J.D.?
I won a Pulitzer when you were 23
Judicial activism is named after me
The “Greenhouse Effect,” I’m swaying the Court
I bust phat rhymes you ain’t got no retort
and then Greenburg might respond:
Justice Blackmun’s papers? Don’t get a swelled head.
Harry B. wouldn’t talk to you till after he was dead
8 living Justices gave me words for my book
And the reviewers all sayin my s***’s off the hook
There’s a new Green in town and your rep won’t last
If you’re readin’ Linda G. then you’re livin’ in the past.
@ Anon 10:41--
Word.
i've never heard of adam white and now i know why - his piece is crap, both from a jurisprudential and a journalistic standpoint. both of greenhouse's essays were fine - not great - but fine. rosen is the one who wrote a stupid piece on roberts for the times. greenburg certainly is cute though. makes me want to flip through her book at B&N and see if there is some substance there (as opposed to mere access).
Rosen's piece was pretty bad.