Add RSS RSS

Divagate: A Rebuttal to Nina and Jan

Nina Totenberg NPR Georgetown Abovethelaw Above the Law blog.jpgMaybe you're tired of reading about NPR's Nina Totenberg and the tempest in a teapot over seating in the Supreme Court press gallery.

But we're not. So we'll continue to write about it, since ATL is our party, and we'll cry if we want to.

We have two new messages to pass along today. One is from a current member of the SCOTUS press, and the second is from a former member of that group.

If you're interested in this story, you can read the messages, after the jump.

A member of the Supreme Court press corps had this to say:

Nina Totenberg's arrogance and rudeness are so well known that a court could take judicial notice of the fact. But Jan Crawford Greenburg's explanation of seating arrangements for reporters covering the Supreme Court warrants some additional information.

As Crawford Greenburg explains, the 'regular' Supreme Court press corps members are assigned specific seats in the first two rows only for 'major,' not for 'second-tier' cases. She also correctly notes that the 'aisle seats' in the first two rows are seen as somewhat preferable because they allow quicker egress.

But this is where things get tricky:

Reporters who cadge the aisle seats on 'second-tier' days ordinarily do not give them up voluntarily. Instead, later-arriving reporters have to take the less desirable seats farther from the aisle -- just like at the movie theaters. Whatever the specifics of the incident cited by Above the Law's previous source, I can attest that I have seen Totenberg on at least one occasion arrive late and insist on taking the aisle seat from the reporter who had arrived earlier.

Very interesting -- and what a relief! After the lovely testimonials by Jan Crawford Greenburg and Tom Goldstein, our faith in Nina as Diva was shaken. Now it has been restored.

A second source, who has covered the Court in the past, essentially confirms this:

The front rows in the press gallery are indeed reserved for Supreme Court regulars -- the ones who are credentialed by the Court. These people include Linda, Nina and Jeffrey. I believe the AP and some other outlets have a seat as well.

The rest of us who only go to the Court once a year (if even) to cover a specific case aren't allowed to sit in the front rows UNLESS one of the regulars doesn't show. Then you can sit in those rows -- if you ask the security guard nicely, he will usually let you move up.

So even if you have an assigned seat, if you arrive late -- as La Totenberg allegedly did -- usually you're out of luck.

Anyway, why does everyone care about these seats so much? Our second source explains:

These seats are coveted not just because they are padded but because everyone can see you. It is a status symbol to sit there because lawyers and other folks in the main gallery envy that you have such a great view of the bench. The press area is off to the left.

Otherwise, the little people have to sit in the "back" room of the press gallery. They have crappy chairs and if you get there too late you won't even get a view of the justices. You have to watch them through some sort of lattice screen.

Ah yes, status symbols. This whole episode just goes to show that lawyers (and high schoolers) aren't the only ones obsessed with their place in the pecking order.

Okay, now you REALLY know more than you ever cared to about seating for the press at One First Street. And we've now written all we intend to do on this topic.

But we do have a few more stories about Ms. Nina, which we'll be posting over the next few days. We heart Nina Totenberg!

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Nina Totenberg (scroll down)

Comments
avatar
1 Posted by Let this be the last!!!! | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:36 PM

Foist.

avatar
2 Posted by first | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:36 PM

FiRsT

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:39 PM

Nina Totenberg seems like the most colorful of the Supreme Court reporters (although she may not have much competition).

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:41 PM

I'm surprised that Nina and Jan get along so well, given their political differences.

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:57 PM

What is up with the Totenberg Helmet in the picture? She looks vaguely like some character in one of the many Star Trek spin-offs.

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:03 PM

That's a lovely scarf though. Nice taste, Totes!

avatar
7 Posted by anon | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:12 PM

Personality-wise, NT sounds like a BigLaw partner.

If she sees you as her equal, she's very nice and charming. But if she doesn't, you get treated like dirt.

avatar
8 Posted by Picard | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:15 PM

Contrarily, I say that the scarf enhances the Star Trek feel of the ensemble.

Her hair helmet keeps her safe while travelling at warp speed, as we all know.

But the scarf is a subtle homage to the Enterprise's two-tone uniforms. (Google image "picard.")

Her badge thing is just outside the frame of this picture, in fact.

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:21 PM

Nina Totes rocks, be she a diva or, as Goldstein and she would have us believe, a warm, grandmotherly figure.

I'll split the difference. She's probably not Miranda Priestly from "The Devil Wears Prada", but she's also no Jessica Fletcher from "Murder, She Wrote."

I like my broads assertive. I'll take Nina!

avatar
10 Posted by Anon | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:41 PM

Hm. . . is that a scarf? I thought it was some kind of cloak thing--maybe more Middle Earth than Star Trek. The helmet would protect her from hood-head.

avatar
11 Posted by Anonymous | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:45 PM

Yeah it has kind of a rustice feel - I can totally picture her sitting next to Yoda at the judicial hearings they'd have in those movies.

"Fetch you a Starbucks Yoda will not!"

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:57 PM

4:45, I'm almost peeing myself laughing...

avatar
13 Posted by High Standards | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:44 PM

Google Totenberg + plagiarism. Nina should be a little more humble.

avatar
14 Posted by A. Starbucks | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:52 PM

"A Starbucks" = needless metonym = fail.

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:17 PM

It's not metonymy, it's synecdoche.

Synecdoche = genus for species, or species for genus.

E.g., "Starbucks," a type of coffee, being used to refer to coffee in general.

Metonymy = part for whole, or whole for part.

E.g., "fifty sails" used to refer to fifty sailboats.

Or "hands" used to refer to men ("all hands on deck").

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:31 PM

Despite the valiant attempts of 5:52 and 6:17 to excise the humor, 4:45 is still making me laugh.

avatar
17 Posted by jake | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:53 PM

"security guard"?!? that's the po-lice, and don't you forget it.

avatar
18 Posted by Fed Soc | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:11 PM

This is quite unbelievable. Imagine if a conservative (let alone a Christian conservative with ties with the Bush Administration) had done what Totenberg did. Can we say double standard?

avatar
19 Posted by anonymous | Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:51 PM

lat, did crawford greenburg ever provide an explanation in her email to you about her footwear fiasco that you previously reported?

avatar
20 Posted by yeah | Permalink Friday, July 20, 2007 4:43 AM

What is with white woman and the Supreme Court press corps? And where's WGWAG?

Post Your Comment