Linda Greenhouse: The Farewell Tour
As we’ve previously confessed, “[w]e have a strange obsession with Linda Greenhouse, the Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times.” We’re looking forward to her speech at tonight’s Yale Law School D.C. alumni dinner almost as much as the season premiere of Project Runway (which we’ll watch as soon as we get home).
Greenhouse, a Pulitzer Prize winner and bestselling author, has covered the SCOTUS for almost 30 years. Back in February, she confirmed to ATL the rumors of her departure from the Supreme beat. In January 2009, she will become a journalist-in-residence and senior fellow at Yale Law School.
In connection with her departure from the hallowed halls of the Times, she’s been doing a lot of looking back on her time covering the Court. In Sunday’s Week in Review, she penned this great retrospective. The analysis is thoughtful and penetrating, but our favorite parts were the gossipy tidbits:
I admired Chief Justice Rehnquist as a strategist and tactician; he knew what he wanted and knew his limits, just as in his weekly poker game he knew when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. Justice Antonin Scalia, who joined the court in 1986, was a flashier attention-grabber, but I never had any doubt that William Rehnquist was the brains behind the court’s ascendant conservatives.He took his role seriously, but himself less so (unlike his stuffy predecessor, Warren E. Burger, the first chief justice of my tenure). When he emerged from behind the courtroom’s velvet curtain one morning in 1995 sporting four gold stripes on each sleeve of his robe — with some of his colleagues struggling to suppress smiles — many people saw pomposity, but I saw a wry or maybe even self-mocking comment on the boredom of basic black after 23 years on the court. He had another 10 years to go.
We had nothing approaching a confidential relationship, but we did chat now and then. On the morning after the 2000 presidential election, I ran into him on the court’s plaza as he was taking his morning walk. Wasn’t it amazing, we agreed, that the outcome of the election was still in doubt.
Indeed. Read more, below the fold.
Here’s what LG had to say about SOC (yes, SOC; true SCOTUS groupies know that around One First Street, Justice O’Connor went by “SOC,” not “SDO”):
[N]othing touched me as much as the arrival in September 1981 of Sandra Day O’Connor. I had never heard her name before President Ronald Reagan nominated her that summer to succeed Potter Stewart. Although I covered her confirmation hearing, she remained to me basically a blank slate. That didn’t matter. The first time I looked up from the press section and saw a woman sitting on the bench, I was thrilled in a way I would never have predicted. Her presence invaded my subconscious. I had recurring dreams about her. In one, she asked me my opinion on a pending case (something no justice ever did in real life). But mostly, she just had walk-on roles in ordinary nighttime dramas, her presence signifying what it meant to me to know that there was no longer a position in the legal profession that a woman could not aspire to.Four summers later, I was pregnant. Encountering me in a hallway, Justice O’Connor asked me when the baby was due. “Just before the first Monday in October,” I replied. Sandra Day O’Connor, mother of three, laughed. “Oh, keep your legs crossed,” she urged. “Don’t let that baby come out until the First Monday!” Some 30 minutes into the first Monday in October 1985, my daughter, Hannah, came into the world. I later learned that right before going on the bench that morning for the term’s opening session, Justice O’Connor called the court’s public information office and asked: “Has anyone heard from Linda? Did she have her baby today?”
Greenhouse is also doing an online chat with Times readers. Here’s a fun excerpt, noticed by Romenesko:
Q. What was the most surreal moment you witnessed during your tenure?A. It had to have been the day and night I spent in the Supreme Court press room on Dec. 12, 2000, waiting for the court to hand down its decision in the presidential election case, Bush v. Gore. …As the hours passed, my editors kept calling. What did I know? I knew nothing. Dinner time came. Everyone was afraid to leave the press room. The court cafeteria was closed, and there was no convenient place to get anything to eat. One of the TV news crews ordered in some pizzas. I had assumed the opinion would come at any minute and had neglected to join in their order. As I watched them eat, I realized I was starving, and one of them gave me a bit of crust to chew on.
The doyenne of the Supreme Court press corps, chewing on a crust of pizza. Charming.
Hopefully Greenhouse will be better fed at tonight’s YLSA dinner, where she’s delivering the keynote address. We look forward to seeing her and conveying our good luck wishes in person.
Greenhouse on her most surreal moment covering SCOTUS [Poynter Online / Romenesko]
Talk to the Newsroom: Supreme Court Reporter [New York Times]
2,691 Decisions [New York Times]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Linda Greenhouse (scroll down)
(94) 
Comments
Project Runway?
How long before she announces that she's signing on as a contributor to SCOTUSblog?
Or Balkinization?
eh am i first?
"The first time I looked up from the press section and saw a woman sitting on the bench, I was thrilled in a way I would never have predicted. Her presence invaded my subconscious. I had recurring dreams about her."
She made 'er jumbly bits moist she did.
Was my "butterface" comment moderated out or did it simply not post? I suppose I will soon enough find out...
a pro-abortioner talking about having a baby. How wonderfully ironic.
2:27 - not really
Is there irony in the situation of someone who, like 2:27, refers to something as "ironic" only to reveal his ignorance of the concept?
She spent an entire career summarizing what others could read for themselves. What a wasted life.
let's see, she spends her entire career campaigning for the death of children and then has her own. Yes, that's pretty clear irony.
Look dumbass, even if you accept the position that an abortion is the killing of a child, it does not follow that one who supports the right to abortion supports the killing of *all* children.
Put another way, one who supports the keeping of animals in zoos but does not support the keeping of *all* animals in zoos, is in no respect morally inconsistent.
In conclusion, you are an illogical buffoon.
2:31- Yes really.
The words of Elaine Benes come to mind:
"She's quite a... HANDSOME woman..."
Abortion = TTT
Children = TTT
2:44:
If you accept the position that abortion=murder, then yes, someone who campaigns for the murder of children and then has her own is a symbol of irony.
Put another way, if you campaign for keeping animals in zoos as a good thing but then release animals from zoos nto the wild, then you ARE being ironic.
In conclusion, you are an illogical baboon.
2:44/2:48:
Arguing in metaphor solves nothing. It merely proves that the metaphor used is correct, not that the comparison is correct. You two will not be arguing about this stupid zoo comparison for the next 3 pages, but you're both buffoons/baboons for doing so.
METAPHOR FIGHT!
(ducks under table, searches for nearest exit)
2:48,
Ugh, you are so dumb, I have to assume you were aborted at a fairly early stage.
A: "It is permissible for abortion to occur."
B: "Abortion should occur during every pregnancy."
In your spectacular idiocy, you are attributing to Greenhouse position "B," which is, of course, nonsense.
You are a prom night dumpster baby.
SOC is always wearing lingerie in my dreams.
2:53:
Ugh, you are so dumb. I have to assume you drank the abortionist kool-aid at a very young age:
1. "We should promote child murder and there is nothing wrong with it and the murderers should be protected and celebrated, but I won't do it. I am a moral person, btw."
2. "Pregnancy should not be used to control women and hold them down."
In your spectacular lunacy and heartlessness, you attribute to Greenhouse position "2", which is, of course, nonsense.
You are a Nazi.
If you support the right to abortion, you aren't allowed to have children, right?
2:59(1), I'm actually pro-life (subject to certain exceptions). I just don't stake out ideologically convenient but nonsensical positions.
Also, stop hijacking my comment structure, it's annoying.
2:53
I've always thought that if you replace the word "fetus" in a abortionist's argument with "slave," you'd have phrases frighteningly similar to those from the dark, evil stretches of the past.
"I would never kill my slave but others shouldn't be told how to treat their own slaves."
"My slave, my choice!"
"Those who want to restrict how we treat slaves are merely trying to oppress slave-owners."
3:02:
I love when abortioners try to pretend they're "moderately pro-life." You do just stake out ideologically convenient but nonsensical positions.
Also, your comment structure is condescending and nonsensical. Take the mockery, kid.
3:02: I hear someone calling the waaaaabulence for your complaints.
Lat, please stop with the use of "we."
2:53: "You are a prom night dumpster baby."
No, fetus. After all, anytime you abortioners want to declare something not alive, it's a "fetus", not a baby. And you're prolly happy the prom kids decided to "live their lives free from the patriarchy's command of reverence for life and responsibility."
The only reason there are abortions in this country is that AIPAC uses them to control the population. Everyone totally knows that.
You mean Yale has both the abortion art and the pro-abortion nutcase from the NYT?
Shocking.
3:10 = best argument for mandatory fundie abortions.
3:11 (3)= best argument for cutting off gov't funding for women's studies.
really, 3:11(3)? A pro-abortionist calling for the murder for anyone who opposes them? You wackos don't even realize what you're saying, do you?
It is no longer really up for debate that owning slaves is wrong. Trying to liken pro-choice argument to those who were in favor of owning slaves may have worked in 1850, but it doesn't now. You are TTT for attempting to do. Moreover, since we did pro-choice equal pro-baby killing. If it did, I think we'd see more daycare center bombings.
That being said, there will never be a general consensus that life either begins at conception or perhaps when the umbilical cord is cut or even anywhere in between. This is why there will never be a general consenus that abortion is murder. This is also why in functioning societies compromises are struck (see e.g. Planned Parenthood v. Casey)
Cretins in fine voice today..
It is no longer really up for debate that owning slaves is wrong. Trying to liken pro-choice argument to those who were in favor of owning slaves may have worked in 1850, but it doesn't now. You are TTT for attempting to do. Moreover, since we did pro-choice equal pro-baby killing. If it did, I think we'd see more daycare center bombings.
That being said, there will never be a general consensus that life either begins at conception or perhaps when the umbilical cord is cut or even anywhere in between. This is why there will never be a general consenus that abortion is murder. This is also why in functioning societies compromises are struck (see e.g. Planned Parenthood v. Casey)
3:14: "there will never be a general consensus that life either begins at conception or perhaps when the umbilical cord is cut or even anywhere in between."
---Yes, because 3:14 can see the future. Wow, typical abortionist. hold the line, make sure at least some of those damn kids die.
"Trying to liken pro-choice argument to those who were in favor of owning slaves may have worked in 1850, but it doesn't now."
--Why not? Simply declaring it so doesn't do that. I show that what once was held as a debatable truism now applies to another.
"Moreover, since we did pro-choice equal pro-baby killing. If it did, I think we'd see more daycare center bombings."
--Hmm, we don't see day care center bombings because they are illegal, moron. I can guarantee that if they were, people would do it. Like Planned Parenthood. Too many poor kids, you know!
I've always thought that if you replace the word "fetus" in a abortionist's argument with "peanut butter," you'd have phrases frighteningly similar to those from the dark, evil stretches of the past.
"I would never kill my peanut butter but others shouldn't be told how to treat their own peanut butter."
"My peanut butter, my choice!"
"Those who want to restrict how we treat peanut butter are merely trying to oppress peanut butter-owners."
It's not murder if it's pre-viability, 3:14. Apparently you slept through the last 35 years of constitutional law.
3:17: you do realize that while the slave comparison makes perfect sense, yours doesn't, right?
But go own murdering kids. It's all humorous, right?
Damn kids probably would have had it coming later, anyway.
3:17 (3):
wHY, YOU'RE RIGHT! After all, the Supreme Court decides what morality is! I can kill them all I want, their not human--the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong!
And hey, they think the death penalty is ok, too! Looks like that's moral! Don't have to think about it, the S.C. said it was so!
And hey, if it's 1900, blacks can be separated from whites, and its morally ok! Nothing wrong with making them second-class citizens!
Ah, the abortionists. Where morality is whatever allows them to kill.
Yale: where killing children is en vogue.
The point is this, 3:18(1), the slavery argument suggests that abortion is wrong because at other times in our past, we have treated people as non-people, which was wrong, and now we're doing it again. You still have to convince people, however, that fetusses are people before it has force. Just as some one would have to convince people that peanut butter is worthy of rights accorded to people before it matters how we treat peanut butter. Not saying you're wrong, just that the analogy itself doesn't work unless we already agree.
Man, all this abortion talk really makes me want to go have some abortions.... Yawn!!
Except, 3:25, that abortionists can't even bring themselves to fight the metaphor; inevitably, when abortionists are confronted with this truth, they quickly switch to, "Even if it is alive, it's a personal choice." Which is the biggest hunk of contradictory malarky ever.
Abortionists will never admit to the truth of fetal life, because they know it completely wipes away their arguments. No matter how much evidence you marshal, they will switch to the hypothetical "personal choice"argument and run away to the abortion clinic covering their ears.
unsurprising, after more than 40 years of child murder advocacy, 3:28 would take the subject so lightly.
You do realize that "murder" is a legal term, 3:22? Thought not.
3:31:
You do realize that murder is a moral term that was adopted by legal systems? Thought not.
Man, all this abortion talk makes me want to abort 3:31... Yawn!!!
- 3:28
Guys in my high school used to hijack threads about Supreme Court reporters into irrelevant and idiotic flame wars about abortion all the time, it was no big deal.
FRAT STUD
3:33=Yale art student.
Fetuses are not only alive, they're also delicious.
Guys in my high school used to have abortions all the time, it was no big deal.
yes, frat stud, a reporter who made it her mission to fight for killing kids retires, and then we're not allowed to talk about it. Do you work for Obama, by any chance?
I thought Greenhouse's recent discussion of Bork's nomination was pretty unfair. Volokh has some coverage of that, also notable for it not being hijacked by idiots.
If abortion were illegal because it is murder of life, would pro-lifers advocate a life sentence (or the death penalty, depending on your politics) for anyone who had an abortion or the doctor who performed it? Both are murderers or conspirators to murder, right? Doesn't that have to be the outcome, and if that outcome gives you pause, are you sure you're convinced yourselves?
3:40:
Yes, I do. They are guilty, in my book.
3:40:
Arguing about 2 different things, which is what you abortioners love to do, because you can't when a straight argument on abortion.
But, for your sake:
We can decide on punishments when banning infanticide. Most likely, it's life for the abortion doctors/nurses, but some type of non-life sentence for the woman if she shows mental duress. Although most will show it, and thus deserve some leniency (much like the difference between Manslaughter and murder), many are merely cold blooded Samantha Jones types from sex and the city, who brag about their abortions and feel no duress other than what type of shoe to wear later that evening.
I'm going to miss Linda Greenhouse. I had a Times alert for her articles and found them always to be insightful and enjoyable. Her book Becoming Justice Blackmun is a true joy regardless of your stance on abortion.
Mental "duress," 3:48? Interesting how much trouble you paleocon fundies seem to have with basic English. (And note that the word "duress" is used incorrectly twice so it isn't just a momentary slip).
Referring to people as abortionists makes you sound like a nut-job. I can't wait to see your head explode when Obama nominates the next Supreme Court justice.
Also, the pro-choice stance is defensible regardless of when you deem life or viability to begin, when you consider that the "pro-life"/anti-abortion stance has little to do with the sanctity of life but rather is an anachronistic mechanism of enforcing misogyny. It's a masked attempt to regulate the sex life of consenting individuals by imposing "consequences" for "sinful" activities.
You've shown your cards on that one by saying that women who have abortions "show mental duress" or in your analogies of "fetus" to "slave" you also replaced "woman's body" with "slave".
How about you focus on your own life and your own conduct instead blowing a fuse about behavior that is beyond your control.
duress: fear of injury. Why is that contradictory? I was using it as a synonym for stress. If you want, we can change it to stress or extenuating circumstances.
But not surprising you baby killers jump on one misused word to make sure you can still kill.
But, um, "duress" is not a synonym for stress. I think the word for which you're groping is "distress."
I don't need an excuse to kill babies; I have Roe and Casey. Mmm, dead babies...
3:56=ah, dealing with idiots like you makes me feel so smart.
"Referring to people as abortionists makes you sound like a nut-job. "
--Ah, the abortionists argument. Calling people what they are=nut-job.
"I can't wait to see your head explode when Obama nominates the next Supreme Court justice."
---Yes, it will be so great when/if Obamamessiah wins, and we get more dead babies!
"Also, the pro-choice stance is defensible regardless of when you deem life or viability to begin, when you consider that the "pro-life"/anti-abortion stance has little to do with the sanctity of life but rather is an anachronistic mechanism of enforcing misogyny."
---Ah, the talking points and unproven feminist conspiracy theories of the abortionists. Wonderful logic! You're right, everyone against abortion is just for havign women in chains! BRILLIANT THAT YOU CAN SEE THIS WITHOUT FACTS, KILLER!
"It's a masked attempt to regulate the sex life of consenting individuals by imposing "consequences" for "sinful" activities."
--Or its motivated by a genuine sympathy for the lives you're snuffing out and the disgust at your disregard for human life, especially poor human life. But hey, it's a conspiracy theory, it all fits.
"You've shown your cards on that one by saying that women who have abortions "show mental duress""
---WRONG. I said some would show duress, otherwise they wouldn't be resorting to drastic actions like murder. Are you really trying to argue that pregnancy isn't a life-changing event in someone's life??? That it doesn't cause stress???? If so, you've just destroyed your own argument for murder. QED.
"or in your analogies of "fetus" to "slave" you also replaced "woman's body" with "slave"."
--WRONG AGAIN. I equated woman's body with slave owner. Not slave. please go back to remedial reading, killer.
"How about you focus on your own life and your own conduct instead blowing a fuse about behavior that is beyond your control."
----Ah, the final baby killer response. You can't control this murder, it's not your business, I can kill whomever I want.
The fact that you knuckle-dragging Neanderthals can read at all is a miracle. Much like the lives you callously snuff out.
yes, 4:01: proving once again that the baby killers are devoid of hearts.
duress: from the French for hardness or severity.
You mean that duress?
Or perhaps the other legal claims that an individual can sue another for "mental duress" caused by actions such as defamation? Or the "fear of injury" definition often used for duress, which is synonymous with overwhelming pressure?
You mean those duresses, 4:01?
I love when the abortionists claim that we shouldn't ever interfere with someone else's murder. That's a weird Pat Buchanaon-esque isolationist statement---but hey, illogic is the bedrock of this movement.
...And somewhere there is a CVS overstocked with Xanax...
4:16: believing that snapping one liner insults make up for all the life he's helped destroy.
4:10-- "Duress" means taking an action in fear of bodily injury. It has nothing to do with mental or emotional stress of the sort that in Justice Kennedy's world might follow an abortion. While there are a few tort cases that have used the term "mental duress" to mean "distress," such usage is uniformly confimed to TTT lawyers who are too stupid to know the difference.
Rehnquist the brains behind the conservative movement instead of Scalia? Please. Rehnquist was "conservative" in the fuddy-duddy, pro-business, pro-states rights, anti-criminal defendant sense, and not the conservative intellectual sense. You could predict where Rehnquist would come out in a case 90% of the time by asking yourself "How would my surly old uncle decide this case?" At least with Scalia you would have to look at text and history, and he will side with a plaintiff or criminal defendant if that's where the text and history take him.
And how the hell does she square Sen. Kennedy's defamatory statements about Bork with a "fair" process? Sheesh. I'm no fan of Bork, but if you read his book about his confirmation experience you will learn one thing for sure--Arlen Specter is a moron and has less clue about the Constitution than a TTT first year. That's not Bork's opinion, it is an inescapable conclusion if you just read the hearing transcripts.
Don't let the door hit you in the a$$, Linda.
This has really been a spectacular bit of trolling/thread-hijackery. Somebody has way too much time on their hands.
I never imagined it could be necessary or plausible to say "I would rather talk about about Linda Greenhouse," but there it is.
And yes, 4:10, I wrote "confimed" rather than "confined." Therein lies the difference between a typographical error and not knowing the right word.
4:27:
Got proof that those cases are "confimed" to a "TTT" and "few tort cases" rather than to the body of law at large?
I'm sorry, you're simply wrong. Duress is used as a synonym for "emotional stress" in the law and commonly. Different jurisdictions might have divergent definitions, but for you to get on your abortionist high horse and claim that a few tort cases which prove my point are ignorable simply because they prove my point is to engage in the typical doublethink abortionists have become famous for.
Buffoon.
Linda Greenhouse=celebrator of murdering children. So the topic of this thread is on topic.
"Linda Greenhouse=celebrator of murdering children. So the topic of this thread is on topic."
- 4:50
"For the lunatic, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy."
- Eco
What is all this 'hijacking' nonsense? It's a blog. It can move in numerous directinos.
Over the course of her career, Greenhouse had on an abortion cheerleader outfit.
Now, you may agree with abortion, or you may be against it. But the cheerleader, I mean reporter (ha!), I mean Greenhouse, clearly supported abortion, wrote with a complete bias on the subject, and likely elicits this kind of debate on the subject at the announcement of her retirement...just like Sandra will.
But if you want to talk Greenhouse, she personifies most modern journalists in that she believes herself to be as much a part of any story she covered as the story itself, thereby reducing the credibility of her journalism. Edward Murrow is spinning in his grave faster than a turbine at a nuclear reactor at all the creaminess people are having over her retirement.
Not an attractive person.
WHERE CAN I APPLY FOR AIPAC MEMBERSHIP?
Can anyone confirm the apochryphal story about rehnquist's first time meeting Nixon? Legend has it, when Nixon saw how flamboyantly rehnquist dressed, Nixon asked "who's the homo?"
""For the lunatic, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy."
---You mean how no matter what, abortion is always justified? That classic abortionist logic?
I love how the baby killers equate lunatic with "anyone who opposes murdering children>"
No one is equating lunatic with "anyone who opposes murdering children," they just equated with "the jackass who has spent the last three hours of his life debating 'abortionists' on a blog."
Remember, arguing with people on the internet is like running a race in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded, or perhaps in this case, a lunatic.
Hey, 5:39: Considering you're involved now, I guess we can call you Corky, huh?
I love the quotes around abortionist, 5:39. Because they're not for it, no way.
And abortion is nothing to get worked up over, right?
@5:10 - If someone could confirm the Rehnquist story, it would not be apocryphal. But something tells me that this blog probably is not read by a lot of veterans of the Nixon White House, so I doubt that anyone here can answer the question one way of the other.
The story doesn't sound that plausible to me. Rehnquist did dress flamboyantly in the old photos. However, at that time he was still pretty young, and in the 70s, all young and even most middle-aged guys dressed in a way that nowadays would be thought flamboyant. In contrast, Nixon always stood out during his presidency as looking old-fashioned and out of date. Yet today, when you look at the old photos, Nixon is the one who looks relatively modern while his younger staffers, who were so hip and "with it" at the time, look hilariously out of date with their giant sideburns, mile-wide ties, and oversize lapels.
But it is a funny story.
Does anyone actually look things up in dictionaries anymore before criticizing others for their language usage? "Abortionist" is a perfectly sound word, recognized by Websters and other dictionaries. It does not, however, refer to anyone who is in favor of abortion; it means someone who performs abortions. In this sense it is similar to some other medical words that end in "ist," like cardiologist, radiologist, phlebotomist, etc.
So all abortionists are presumably pro-abortion rights, but the vast majority of people who are pro-abortion rights are not abortionists.
Speaking of the Nixon White House, can anyone explain why Ben Stein has gone all "ID" on us?
The word "abortionist" reminds me of something Swearengen would say on "Deadwood," like "hooplehead" or "celestial."
She's a hack.
dumb cunt belongs among the moonbats at yale.
can someone please moderate these comments???
Abortionists!!!!!
ah, Yale, where murdering children is an art form. Literally.