* Is he a journalist? Well, he’s done the time, so let’s give him credit for the crime. [Washington Post via How Appealing]
* It’s for a slightly different reason this time, but the U.S. still self-righteously refuses to run for seat on the UN Human Rights Council. [Jurist]
* I’m not sure I’d even put a mop in her hand; this woman is dangerous. [CNN]
* Hagel to announce ’08 plans. [AP via Yahoo!]
* I’ve heard of someone getting “killed” in court, but it’s usually a metaphor. [WSJ Law Blog]
- Blogging, Celebrities, Deaths, Media and Journalism, Morning Docket, Naomi Campbell, Politics, Sentencing Law
* Is he a journalist? Well, he’s done the time, so let’s give him credit for the crime. [Washington Post via How Appealing]
- Blog Wars, Blogging, Jan Crawford Greenburg, Linda Greenhouse, Media and Journalism, New York Times, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Vicious Infighting
We have previously compared the fierce competition between Supreme Court correspondents Linda Greenhouse, of the New York Times, and Jan Crawford Greenburg, of the Chicago Tribune, to the rivalry between Margo Channing (Bette Davis) and Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) in All About Eve.
For decades, Linda Greenhouse has ruled the reportorial roost at the Supreme Court — just as Margo Channing reigned over the New York stage. But just as Channing came to be challenged by a young and attractive newcomer, Eve Harrington, Greenhouse now faces tough competition from Jan Crawford Greenburg.
Perhaps this comparison, much as we love it, must stop here. We don’t want to spoil All About Eve for those of you who haven’t seen it. But let’s just say that Margo doesn’t put up much of a fight when Eve moves into her turf.
Linda Greenhouse, in contrast, is NOT going gentle into that good night. She will NOT pass her tiara graciously to Jan Crawford Greenburg, like a Miss America ending her reign. Greenhouse has no intention of allowing Greenburg to ascend to the post of America’s Next Top Supreme Court Reporter — at least not without a (cat)fight.
How do we know this? Just read between the lines of this “Reporter’s Notebook” item by Greenhouse. It’s snarkily entitled “Alarmism in the Blogosphere” — “blogsophere” being synonymous with “unreliable and dubious rumor-mongering” — and in it, Linda G. goes out of her way to embarrass and even humiliate her younger colleague:
Jan Crawford Greenburg, an ABC News correspondent who covers the court, posted a startling item last week on her blog, Legalities. Under the heading “Faith and Frailty,” she wrote that the “real drama” of an argument concerning the Bush administration’s religion-based initiative came when the argument ended.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s delay in getting to her feet and leaving the bench, Ms. Greenburg wrote, seemed a sign of possible ill health and “made me think I’d better start pulling those possible retirement files together.”
The alarming item quickly made its way around the blogosphere, puzzling court insiders who know that Justice Ginsburg, 73, is in fine health and keeps to a schedule that would exhaust most people who are decades younger….
The explanation is, quite literally, pedestrian. According to her chambers, Justice Ginsburg had kicked off her shoes during the argument and could not find one of them.
OUCH. Jan Crawford Greenburg did some phenomenal reporting work for her fantastic new book on the Court, Supreme Conflict. But in a single breezy, casually tossed-off “Reporter’s Notebook” item, Greenhouse makes Greenburg look like a rank amateur.
We conduct a close reading of Greenhouse’s column, after the jump.
- 9th Circuit, Airplanes / Aviation, Alex Kozinski, Blogging, Clerkships, Federal Judges, Judicial Divas, Kids, Marsha Berzon, Screw-Ups
Some time ago, we posted an anecdote about the family travel mishaps of Judge Marsha Berzon, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Many ATL readers enjoyed the story. But Judge Berzon’s colleague, Judge Alex Kozinski — one of the federal judiciary’s most brilliant thinkers and talented writers — was less pleased. He sent us an open letter criticizing the story and our decision to publish it.
We posted Judge Kozinski’s letter here, and we promised a more detailed response.
We intended to publish a response much earlier. But having to respond to a benchslapping at the hands of a brilliant federal judge tends to induce “writer’s block.” Who’d have thunk it?
Anyway, we finally got over our writer’s block. Our response appears after the jump.
- Ann Althouse, Arthur Leonard, Blogging, Conferences / Symposia, Dahlia Lithwick, Fashion, James Lindgren, Law Professors, Lawrence Solum, Media and Journalism, Pictures, Randy Barnett
A pair of Volokh Conspirators, Professors James Lindgren and Randy Barnett, at last week’s NYLS conference on writing about the law. Inset: Professor Cameron Stracher, who organized the symposium.
In our write-up of the NYLS conference panel on law reviews, we offered the following fashion commentary:
Professors Barnett and Stracher are both rockin’ the “downtown auteur” look: black or dark blue suit, dark collarless shirt, no tie. Not bad in a vacuum, but unfortunate that they’re on the same panel with the same look (except as to the color of their shirts).
Professor Barnett has taken issue with our observations. He claims that he was wearing a crewneck shirt, while Professor Stracher was wearing a turtleneck — and that “a world of difference” exists between the two.
We pulled out our photographs of Professors Barnett and Stracher. Professor Barnett is clearly wearing a crew neck — the same crew neck he’s wearing in his website photo, it seems. But we couldn’t tell the type of Professor Stracher’s collar (above inset).
So we looked up Professor Ann Althouse’s more detailed photograph of Professor Stracher (together with yours truly). Yep, that’s a turtleneck (although a relatively short one).
We apologize to Professor Barnett, and we regret the error.
In addition, Professor Lindgren wanted to clarify his choice of a button-down shirt (for which we criticized him). He explained that he has several levels of sartorial formality, and he deliberately chose a button-down because he viewed the NYLS conference as calling for a moderate rather than extreme level of formality. Given the fairly laid-back nature of the proceedings, we can see where he’s coming from.
For true legal-media-and-academia groupies, additional pictures of top legal journalists and law professor bloggers appear after the jump.
- Blogging, Breasts, Celebrities, Copyright, Document Review, Intellectual Property, Jennifer Aniston, Movies, Pictures
More legal troubles for controversial celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton, aka Mario Lavandeira. The latest lawsuit against him, filed by Universal City Studios, asserts copyright infringement, arising out of Lavandeira’s publication of a topless photograph of Jennifer Aniston (taken from allegedly stolen footage from “The Break-Up”).
The complaint is fairly straightforward. The most amusing part of the filing is an exhibit to the complaint: the topless Jennifer Aniston pic, with a strategically situated “Redacted” stamp:
During our time in commercial litigation, we got to know the “Redacted” stamp very well — perhaps too well. But we never saw the “Redacted” stamp used in quite such an interesting way.
We suspect that the Court will order an in camera examination of the unredacted photograph. Especially if the case winds up before Judge Manuel Real.
Lawsuit Over Topless Aniston Photo [The Smoking Gun via Drudge Report]
- Ann Althouse, Blogging, Conferences / Symposia, James Lindgren, Law Professors, Lawrence Solum, Parties, Randy Barnett, Walter Olson
We had a blast at last week’s Writing About the Law conference, at New York Law School. And we weren’t the only ones. Here’s a (rather belated) round-up of conference coverage from the blogosophere:
1. Social life of a blawger [Overlawyered]
As you can see from his post, Walter Olson was a social butterfly at the conference. We enjoyed sitting next to him at lunch, where we talked about — what else? — his famous neighbor in Chappaqua, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Let the conversation begin!
2. Blawgers are Dirty Swingers [QuizLaw]
Dustin wasn’t even at the conference, but he used Walter Olson’s post as the jumping-off point for this entertaining write-up. Even Ann Althouse was amused — despite being the subject of the line, “One night with Ann Althouse is all I ask, man. It’s all I ask.”
(Back off, Dustin — she’s with us.)
3. At the “Writing About the Law” conference [Althouse]
Speaking of Professor Althouse, here’s her account of the proceedings. It’s a multimedia extravaganza. In addition to several photos, it includes an amusingly awkward video. Technology is swell!
4. “Writing About the Law: From Bluebook to Blogs and Beyond” at NYLS, Part I
“Writing About the Law: From Bluebook to Blogs and Beyond” at NYLS, Part II
“Writing About the Law: From Bluebook to Blogs and Beyond” at NYLS, Part III
A trio of substantive write-ups of various panels, from Lawrence Solum of Legal Theory Blog.
Despite his brilliance, the lanky Professor Solum shares our tendency towards typos. Is referring to the Duke lacrosse team rape case as “the Dukie case” a Freudian slip?
5. Ripped From The Headlines [Soloway]
Photographs from the conference (including a profile shot of us typing away on our laptop).
6. Live-Blogging the NYLS Symposium on Writing About the Law [TaxProf Blog]
A linkwrap by Professor Paul Caron (who has duly noted our comments on his shirt selection).
7. Is John McCain’s website suggestive of NAZI iconography? [Volokh Conspiracy]
Professors Jim Lindgren and Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy both spoke at the conference, but haven’t really blogged about it. This VC post, from Professor Lindgren, includes a brief shout-out to Professor Althouse: “It was a pleasure to see Ann Althouse at the New York Law School conference yesterday.”
Here’s a picture we took of these two professors, mugging for the camera:
We must confess: we’ve never been huge fans of the bacon-lettuce-tomato sandwich. And we don’t like dogs. In America, these are felonies.
But we’ve finally found a BLT we can enjoy. Say hello to The BLT: The Blog of the Legal Times!
From Jim Oliphant’s inaugural post:
Hey look, it’s a blog.
Not exactly revolutionary at this point is it? So why would Legal Times do it, other than, of course, to slavishly follow journalistic convention.
That’s the cynical reason. The real reason is the opportunity this medium affords us, one that despite the wretched excess of blogs polluting the net remains very real, particularly in the areas this publication watches.
Check out that droll opening line, sans exclamation point. Admire the meta-ness of it all: blogging about their decision to start a blog.
The Legal Timesfolk are off to an excellent start as bloggers. Check out these two juicy posts (picked up by How Appealing):
1. Seller is Relocating, about how Justice Alito has put his New Jersey home up for sale (we’ll probably do a Lawyerly Lairs post on it); and
2. The Chief and Microsoft, about the rare oral argument “oopsie” from Ted Olson.
Delicious. We’ve added BLT to the ATL blogroll, and we expect to visit early and often.
The BLT is Served [The BLT: The Blog of the Legal Times]
Oops, we forgot to post our write-up of the final panel of Friday’s conference at New York Law School.
Afternoon Panel (2:15-3:30): Beyond the Bluebook: The Future of Writing About the Law
“In a world increasingly dominated by blogs and online publications, does traditional legal scholarship have a future? Will legal scholars abandon the traditional law review to write for a popular audience, and if so, why? What will this brave new world look like?”
Panelists and Moderator:
* Bernard Hibbitts, Professor, University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Editor in Chief of Jurist.
* Rosa Brooks, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center and op-ed columnist, Los Angeles Times.
* Jack Balkin, Professor, Yale Law School and Founder and Director of the Information Society Project.
* Lawrence B. Solum, Professor, University of Illinois College of Law and author of Legal Theory Blog.
* Rodger Citron (Moderator), Assistant Professor of Law, Touro Law Center.
For those of you who are interested — which, we realize, is probably a small, wonky group — a brief discussion appears after the jump.
We’re up in New York right now for a symposium on legal writing at New York Law School. Topics to be covered include both legal academic writing, for student-run law reviews, as well as writing about legal affairs for a lay audience (e.g., through legal journalism and blogging).
The comfortable, well-lit classroom that we’re in right now has excellent wireless internet access. So we will be blogging, both about the conference and non-conference subjects, throughout the day.
P.S. We think this conference will be very worthwhile. We’re only applying the “Dubious Conferences” tag because we’re quite proud of it, and don’t get to use it enough.
Writing About the Law: From Bluebook to Blogs and Beyond [New York Law School]
We just woke up from a nice little nap, to see that we’ve been given a delightful gift from the WSJ Law Blog: a copy of Sullivan & Cromwell’s motion to dismiss. To access it, click here (PDF).
Please post your thoughts on it in this open thread. We haven’t had a chance to read it yet. But one of you advises us by email:
Dude! You’re “one commentator”! (page 7 of complaint). But they wouldn’t give you the satisfaction of citing the name of the web site!!!
No name-check. Oh well. Are the Paul Hastings and S&C lawyers too embarrassed to admit that they read this fine website?
(But hey, we’re just lowly bloggers — we’ll take what we can get.)
P.S. Here’s the language in question:
Charney’s propensity toward wholesale disclosure was succinctly summarized by one commentator, who on February 2, 2007 stated as follows “Plaintiff Aaron Charney…. is usually an INSTANT emailer…. In the past he has been very cordial and chatty with us.”