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.

* A look back on the Supreme Court Term just ended. (Also: Is this Linda Greenhouse's swan song?) [New York Times]

Update: No, it's not. Greenhouse informed us by email that she'll be at the Times until July 18 and will be writing a few more pieces between now and then.

* DOD and EPA disagree on cleanup. [Washington Post]

* LVMH wins French lawsuit against ebay for counterfeit products, following earlier win for Hermes. [New York Times]

* Kellerman on Scalia's gun safety theory. [Washington Post]

* Iraqi government doing a double-take on oil contract bidding? [New York Times]

* Indiana teacher fired for using Freedom Writers' Diary. [CNN Video]

* DOJ settles with ex-Army scientist Steven Hatfill for $5.8 million. [AP]

Adam Liptak is the national legal reporter for New York Times, though he'll soon be taking over the Supreme Court beat from Linda Greenhouse.

Liptak's answering questions from readers this week, so the NYTimes has a feature on him:

He first joined The Times as a copyboy in 1984, after graduation from Yale University, where he was an editor of The Yale Daily News Magazine, with a degree in English. In addition to clerical work and fetching coffee, he assisted the reporter M.A. Farber in covering the trial of a libel suit brought by Gen. William Westmoreland against CBS.

Mr. Liptak returned to Yale for a law degree, graduating in 1988. During law school, he worked as a summer clerk in the The New York Times Company's legal department. After graduating, he spent four years at Cahill Gordon & Reindel, a New York City law firm, as a litigation associate specializing in First Amendment matters.

In 1992, he returned to The Times's legal department, spending a decade advising The Times and the company's other newspapers, television stations and new media properties on defamation, privacy, newsgathering and related issues, and he frequently litigated media and commercial cases.

In 2002, Liptak gave into the writing itch and joined the news staff. For those of you aspiring to make the jump from law to journalism, you can draw inspiration from Liptak's interesting career path.

The Times readers have lots of serious questions for Liptak, about the SCOTUS voter id ruling, the death penalty, the question of balance, etc. No gossipy questions about Biglaw vs Bigmedia salaries, or filling Linda Greenhouse's heels. Oh well, there are two days of questions left...

Talk to the Newsroom: Adam Liptak, National Legal Reporter [New York Times]

We have a strange obsession with Linda Greenhouse, the Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times. When we spotted her recently at Jennifer 8. Lee's D.C. book talk for The Fortune Cookie Chronicles, we practically leapt out of our seats in excitement. [FN1]

If you're a fellow LG groupie, and if you're at Yale Law School, here's some good news. As one tipster excitedly chirped to us, "Linda Greenhouse is going to be a Yale Law sort-of-professor!" From the Yale Daily News:

After 30 years covering the Supreme Court for The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize-winner Linda Greenhouse will take a new post as a journalist-in-residence and senior fellow at Yale Law School starting next January, the Law School announced Wednesday.

Greenhouse, who accepted a buyout from The Times last month, will return to the law school from which she earned a Master of Studies in Law degree in 1978 to conduct her own research and give lectures and seminars, although it is not yet clear whether she will teach a formal course. She will also be involved with the Law School's Supreme Court Clinic and will help pioneer its new Law and Media Program.

More details in the YLS press release. Surely this can only help Yale maintain its sizable lead over #2 Harvard and Stanford in the U.S. News rankings. (Yale has an overall score of 100, with Harvard and Stanford almost ten points behind, at 91.)

As you may recall, Linda Greenhouse received a cool $300K in her Times buyout. It's a pittance compared to Biglaw bucks, but a princely sum in the world of journalism.

And now Greenhouse will be supplementing this with a draw on the well-endowed coffers of YLS -- we're guessing low six-figures (for what doesn't sound like very much work). She'll probably begin work on another book, too, for which she can expect a good-sized advance. Her last book, Becoming Justice Blackmun, was a national bestseller.

Linda Greenhouse to Linda Greenbacks!

[FN1] The use of "we" is especially appropriate here because Kash and I attended this reading together.

Yale Law School nabs Linda Greenhouse after Times departure [Yale Daily News]
Linda Greenhouse Returning To Yale Law School in 2009 as Journalist-in-Residence [Yale Law School]

* Linda Greenhouse to $300K! [New York Observer via ABA Journal]

* Duties of a law school dean: attend parties, appear at conferences, talk to alums. And don't forget the herding of cats -- aka law professors. [TJ's Double Play]

* Even law review editors screw up sometimes. "Constructive acceptance"? [Concurring Opinions]

* Who'd have thunk it? Sometimes blogging can help people. And stuff. [Legal Blog Watch]

* Ethan Leib dresses up as a giant chicken to teach Contracts, thereby guaranteeing ABA accreditation. [PrawfsBlawg]

* Orin Kerr points out online interviews "with eight of the nine current Supreme Court Justices (all but Souter) about legal writing, advocacy, and the process of deciding cases and writing opinions." [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Ann Althouse on John McCain and being a "natural-born citizen." [Althouse]

* Hillary to Russert: You can't handle the truth! About my tax returns. [TaxProf Blog]

We already discussed this news yesterday. But in our earlier post, we promised to let you know if and when Linda Greenhouse got back to us -- and she kindly did, sending the following message to ATL about her rumored departure as the New York Times's Supreme Court correspondent:

As you may know - the Times put a newsroom-wide buyout package on the table last week, in an effort to shrink the staff by 100. For someone of my seniority (40 years) the terms are very attractive, and I've told my bureau chief that I plan to take it. I was planning to retire in a few years, and giving up this package would have basically meant working for free - which seemed foolish, much as I love my job. I plan to keep writing about the court in various forums.

(I should note that this is not official, because the buyout window is open until March 5, after which the Times will respond to the individual volunteers - so my response to you is based on the assumption that my acceptance of their offer will in turn be accepted.)

Greenhouse also confirmed her move to the Associated Press (via WSJ Law Blog).

During her 30 years covering the Court for the Times, Linda Greenhouse has sometimes been controversial. See here, here, and here, for perhaps the most recent controversy.

It cannot be denied, however, that Greenhouse has tremendous knowledge of the Supreme Court's history and inner workings, as well as unparalleled access to the justices themselves. Few journalists are such superstars that their comings and goings are covered by the AP.

Greenhouse leaves big shoes to fill, and it will be interesting to see how her successor fares. How much of her clout was the institutional clout of the New York Times, and how much of it was Greenhouse qua Greenhouse? We'll find out soon enough.

Feel free to speculate about replacements for the legendary Linda Greenhouse, in the comments.

NYT's Greenhouse Takes Buyout Offer [Associated Press via WSJ Law Blog]
Public and Private Lives, Intersecting [New York Times]
Lay Off Linda [Slate]
Far From Sober [National Review Online]

Earlier: Is the Margo Channing of One First Street Taking Her Final Bow?

We have previously compared Linda Greenhouse, the veteran Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times, to Margo Channing, the great but aging diva of All About Eve. The comparison continues to hold.

Just as Margo Channing eventually leaves the thea-tuh, so too does Linda Greenhouse leave the SCOTUS. Ed Whelan, the former Scalia clerk with lots of Court connections, has this report over at Bench Memos:

According to a well-placed Supreme Court source, New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse is telling folks at the Court that she has accepted a Times buyout package and will be ending her coverage of the Court at the end of the current term.

So that's the word on One First Street. We have reached out to Linda Greenhouse for comment and will let you know if and when we hear back from her.

If this is true -- and we have no reason to doubt it, since it comes from the well-connected Whelan -- then Jan Crawford Greenburg is one step closer to being Queen Bee of the Supreme Court press corps. Nina Totenberg, watch your back!

Update: More from Ed Whelan at NRO Online: "On the same day that we learn of Linda Greenhouse’s imminent departure from the New York Times, Greenhouse provides further evidence of her bias...."

Greenhouse's Departure [Bench Memos / National Review Online]
Re: Breyer’s and Souter’s Drift to the Right? [Bench Memos / National Review Online]

Earlier: All About... Jan?

"Dear Jim: Thanks for the great job you do pushing the mail cart around the office. You truly are a special person!"

[Charlie Savage signs a copy of his book for Aaron Zitner, politics editor for the Los Angeles Times.]

Earlier this week, we attended a delightful book party for Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe. Savage won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, based on his work on presidential signing statements.

Photos and discussion of the star-studded event -- after you win a Pulitzer, everyone is your friend! -- after the jump.

* The best argument for immigration reform: qualified (i.e., hot) fashion models are being kept off American runways. [Fashionista]

* What rating does ATL get -- e.g., G, PG, R, etc. -- using this tool? To give you context, NBS is a PG-13. [Nasty, Brutish & Short]

* What blogs does Linda Greenhouse read? [My Times ("Journalist's Picks") via Romenesko]

* What blogs do judges read? [May It Please the Court]

* And what blogs should they read? [Blawg Review]

* Speaking of judges, here's our Judge of the Day -- possibly offensive, and wrong on the law too. [AP via NYT]

* The Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last, on the Nixon Peabody non-theme-song: "Some things you just can't un-hear." [Galley Slaves]

To follow up on our earlier post, here's an update on L'Affaire Linda, from the Columbia Journalism Review:

Linda Greenhouse has written a letter in response to C-SPAN in which she defends herself against their accusations. In it she claims that the "issue is not one of 'open media access to public policy discussions,'" as C-SPAN's Terence Murphy wrote in his letter, but "one of communication and simple courtesy."

Ignoring the question of whether she received an email warning her that C-SPAN was going to be present, Greenhouse writes, " I learned about the plan to cover the Supreme Court panel only when I showed up and saw the cameras. Prof. Gajda told me yesterday that she had only learned at 5:00 p.m. the day before that C-Span intended to cover our panel."

Read the rest -- plus a bonus Linda Greenhouse Rap!!! -- after the jump.

We feel better. We're not the only folks who have been rudely dissed by Linda Greenhouse, the longtime op-ed columnist Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times.

From Jim Romenesko's widely read media blog, Poynter Online:

NYT's Greenhouse demands that C-SPAN turn off its cameras
Columbia Journalism Review

The Times' Linda Greenhouse became upset when she realized that C-SPAN planned to broadcast a panel discussion featuring Supreme Court reporters. "I told [the event organizer] she had a choice, either she could have me on the panel speaking candidly or she could have C-SPAN there," Greenhouse tells Gal Beckerman. "I didn't want to have to modulate my comments for a national audience."

C-SPAN's programming veep is unhappy: "All the participants were notified the night before, and no one objected. Then, five to ten minutes beforehand, we were told we couldn't cover it. Having a five-person crew unable to work for a day was a major hit on us."

Wow. To the commenters who have questioned our characterization of Greenhouse as a diva, please reconsider your views.

So why did Linda Greenhouse throw a hissy fit over possible C-SPAN coverage? We have some (quasi-informed) speculation.

Some thoughts and some links, plus the complete protest letter sent by C-SPAN, appear after the jump.

In case you haven't noticed, we're kinda obsessed with Linda Greenhouse, the longtime Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times. But we're afraid she's not our biggest fan. :-(

At the recent (and excellent) ACS National Convention, Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog moderated a fantastic panel on covering the Supreme Court. One of the panelists was Linda Greenhouse. After the panel, we approached and introduced ourselves. Her sarcastic response: "Oh, so you're the famous David Lat."

(Ouch -- but we loved it. Getting abused by divas is one of our favorite pastimes!)

We praised her work. La Greenhouse quipped, quasi-snarkily (you had to be there): "Do you already have what I said up on the web?"

We offered her our business card, which she finally took -- after pointedly letting it hover in the air. She did not proffer hers, then strode away, capri pants flapping in the ballroom's air conditioning.

So yes, Linda Greenhouse -- we had a reason for bringing her up. Did you catch her "Supreme Court Memo" in yesterday's Times, on Chief Justice John Roberts's recent seizure?

We have some meta-commentary on it. Check it out, after the jump.

We're loving this little dustup over our item about Nina Totenberg getting territorial over seating in the Supreme Court press gallery. It got us a shout-out in the Washington Post. And it's generating celebrity correspondence for us, too.

Over the weekend, we heard from SCOTUS bar superstar Tom Goldstein. And then, this morning, we received this email, from one of our favorite commentators on legal affairs:

From: Dahlia Lithwick
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:35 AM
To: David Lat
Subject: one bigger question raised in Divagate

The Wa Po article about Nina said she was "dean" of the Supreme Court press corps.

I have also heard that title applied to both Linda [Greenhouse] and Lyle [Denniston] at various times.

What the heck is that about?

Is it a real position? Is it tenured?

Good questions. It reminds us of "The Tenth Justice," a title that has been bestowed on everyone from the Solicitor General to ex-judge J. Michael Luttig to Howard Bashman (by Howard Bashman).

Also, can you run for this post of "dean"? If the SCOTUS press corps is like high school, is this like being class president? Or prom queen?

If so, we nominate Dahlia Lithwick. She's fabulous! How many Supreme Court correspondents have Facebook fan clubs?

(Linda Greenhouse, eat your (bleeding) heart out....)

Names & Faces: Totenberg's Courtside Seat [Washington Post]
A3G to President Bush: Pick Alito, Not Luttig [Underneath Their Robes]

Earlier: Why Is Nina Totenberg Like Judy Miller?

And we're not speaking metaphorically, about the remaining decisions from October Term 2006.

We're talking about the shoes of celebrated Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, of ABC News. Will a pair of Manolos fall from the sky?

So, what happened to JCG's footwear? Was it a case of sabotage, by an increasingly threatened rival?

Go Home Already: Missed Connections [DCist]

"Linda says Jan has had work done -- I mean, A LOT of work...."

Due to associate pay raise mania, we've been neglecting news in other areas of the legal profession -- like our beloved federal judiciary. We're embarrassed, for example, not to have commented upon the Bush Administration's rumored Supreme Court short list, drawn up in case there's an unexpected vacancy at the end of this Term.

The theme of the article: the shortlist is centered on women and minorities. Most of the names are familiar (e.g., Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen), but there was one very exciting addition: Judge Loretta Preska, of the Southern District of New York.

Here's how she was described previously at Underneath Their Robes:

Judge Loretta A. Preska. In a word: magnificent. Tall, thin, elegant. Great bone structure, perfectly coiffed silver hair. Note to self: nominate for superhotties contest next year? Fabulous dark blue suit. Who designed? Dramatic, extra-long jacket, white-trimmed lapels; tapers down towards clasp, then flares out again--gorgeous cut. Nice accessories: big gold eagle pin, ladies-who-lunch pearl necklace, matching earrings. Delivers intro like newscaster, smooth as butter. Gestures grandly with long fingers; flawless manicure. WOW!

This scrumptious SCOTUS scoop was delivered courtesy of Jan Crawford Greenburg, one of our favorite Supreme Court correspondents. And our affection for her has only grown after we attended an event with her last week, at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) in Washington.

Discussion of that event -- where we put JCG on the spot about her rivalry with Linda Greenhouse -- appears after the jump.

Do we exaggerate the rivalry between Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times's veteran Supreme Court correspondent, and comely up-and-comer Jan Crawford Greenburg, who covers the Court for ABC News?

Maybe. We have a weakness for the dramatic, in case you haven't noticed. But even if exaggerated, there's no denying the tension between these two formidable female journalists.

Linda Greenhouse recently spoke at a litigation department luncheon at Willkie Farr in New York. And in her remarks, she threw down the gauntlet before Jan Crawford Greenburg.

Here's what La Greenhouse had to say about Supreme Conflict, the bestselling book penned by her young rival (emphasis added):

"In her book, Jan Crawford Greenburg wrote, I think quite improbably and without any evidence, that Justice Thomas is the ideological heavyweight anchoring the conservative side of the court..."

"Jan Crawford Greenburg got a lot of mileage out of that statement in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, but I just don't think it's true."

WOW. What did Willkie Farr feed Greenhouse for lunch? Fancy Feast?

An interesting account of the rest of Greenhouse's remarks, from an ATL reader who was there, after the jump.

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]

That's the prospect repeatedly pushed in a two-part profile of Yale Law School Dean Harold Hongju Koh, from the Yale Daily News. The profile has been discussed extensively in the legal blogsophere (see links below).

Oh goodness. We could say something snarky and dismissive (e.g., "Hell to the N-O"). But we will comport ourselves with the dignity you expect from a leading gossip blogger.

We will merely refer you to what others have already said on the subject. E.g., Professor Stephen Bainbridge ("Koh's appointment to the SCOTUS would be an unmitigated disaster."); Professor David Bernstein (Koh is "a highly partisan liberal Democrat under whose tenure as dean conservative and libertarian students have felt increasingly uncomfortable"); and commenters at the WSJ Law Blog ("a severe narcissist," "a political zealot," and "[Harvard Dean] Elena Kagan would be a better choice").

(Our favorite comment, from a WSJ Law Blog reader: "Other than that he’d be a sure vote for declaring Gitmo detainees have a constitutional right to Social Security benefits, I do not see the appeal.")

So we're holding our tongue. We do not want to have our YLS degree revoked after the fact.

A few more thoughts, after the jump.

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.

* AG Gonzales: Federal judges are unqualified to make national security decisions. [MSNBC]

* AG Gonzales: Federal judges should be making national security decisions. [MSNBC; Washington Post]

* Affirmative action takes center stage at Boalt. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Dahlia asks, "Have the Supreme Court's opinions become suggestions in Texas?" [Slate]

* Linda discusses the Texas death penalty cases as well. [New York Times]

* Former Cendant Chairman Walter Forbes get sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison, on accounting fraud charges. The prosecution was handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for New Jersey; Forbes was represented by Williams & Connolly. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Picking a jury for the Scooter Libby trial in D.C., the biggest small town in America: it ain't easy. [Washington Post]