Jan Crawford Greenburg, Linda Greenhouse, SCOTUS, Supreme Court

Greenhouse v. Greenburg: JCG Responds

By  
on

“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.


Before the event, we chatted with Jan Crawford Greenburg (hereinafter “JCG”). She explained that she had just returned from New York (by plane, of course; no Chinatown bus for her).
We admired her summery ensemble: a pantsuit in dark brown, as opposed to the more formal skirt suit she wore to her Georgetown talk, paired with a cream-colored blouse and expertly accessorized with a coral necklace. Her reddish-brown hair also looked lighter than in the past.

Greenburg was introduced by M. Edward Whelan III (above), a former Scalia clerk and DOJ official (and current blogger), who serves as president of the EPPC. In his remarks, Ed Whelan noted that Greenburg is a University of Alabama alumna: “So if there are any Auburn fans in the room, please keep it civil…”
JCG’s prepared remarks focused on her book, Supreme Conflict (which we read and greatly enjoyed, and commend to you all). She described it as “two books for the price of one”: the story of how the Rehnquist Court became that Court, and a history of the recent nominations of John G. Roberts, Harriet Miers, and Samuel A. Alito.
Much of this discussion previously appeared in our report on her Georgetown Law appearance (with Jeff Rosen); so we won’t repeat it here. We’ll just mention a few comments that caught our attention this time around:
* “In some ways [the Court[ is like nine individual law firms,” JCG noted. But they define themselves in relation to each other. E.g., the conservative Justice Thomas caused Justice O’Connor and Justice Kennedy to drift leftward in reaction.
* “The story of the [Harriet] Miers nomination is actually kind of sad.
(We agree. See here.)
* The people involved in trying to prepare Miers for her confirmation hearings described the experience as “trying to teach someone French in three weeks — and expecting them to pass a fluency exam” at the end. HA!!!
Things got juicier in the question-and-answer period. A few highlights:
1. We asked JCG (paraphrased; if you want the exact wording, locate the audio clip on the EPPC website):
“I’d like to ask you about the Supreme Court press corps, specifically, one particular member of it: Linda Greenhouse, of the New York Times. If one were to subject Greenhouse to some dime-store psychology, she seems strangely threatened by you. She wrote that snarky Reporter’s Notebook item on your blog post about Justice Ginsburg. More recently, at a lunch talk at the New York law firm of Willkie Farr, she criticized the conclusions you draw in your book about Justice Thomas, describing them as lacking evidentiary support.”
“Thus far you seem to be taking a Rose Garden approach to Linda Greenhouse, declining to engage her attacks. So… what do you REALLY think of Linda Greenhouse?”
JCG seemed caught off-guard, perhaps flustered — but for just a moment. She quickly regained her composure, and delivered this response:
“I did hear about Linda Greenhouse’s talk at Willkie Farr. I read about it on your blog, in fact.”
(JCG reads Above the Law? How neat!)
“My point about Justice Thomas is that he was always an individual and forceful, solid conservative voice. I didn’t think that Greenhouse’s account [claiming that JCG saw CT as “the ideological heavyweight anchoring the conservative side of the court”] was an accurate characterization of what I wrote.”
“But people are free to read my book and disagree. And it’s great to have so many writers, so many different voices, covering the Court.”
“Linda has obviously been the preeminent Supreme Court reporter for a long time, and I’m sure she will continue to do so. I read her stories with great interest.”
SIGH. Jan, we commend you for being such a class act. But it doesn’t make for the greatest copy…
2. JCG went on a fascinating digression about the interior decoration of the justices’ chambers. “The justices’ chambers oddly reflect their personalities.”
Justice O’Connor: her chambers boast “the colors of her beloved southwest,” as well as “coffee tables fashioned out of drums.”
Justice Ginsburg: her chambers are “sleek” and “minimalist,” exactly what you’d expect from “the New York intellectual that she is.”
Justice Kennedy: his chambers are “grandiose,” with an enormous seal of the United States; they look more like the office of a United States senator than a Supreme Court justice.
(Funny quip from an audience member: “And Justice Souter’s chambers — like the Bates Motel?”)
3. JCG discussed future retirements and future nominees to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t think Bush will get another nomination.”
When she interviewed Justice John Paul Stevens, after the death of President Ford, she was struck by how “hale and hearty” he was, and how much energy he had.
These days “it’s interesting to watch [JPS] in the struggle for Kennedy.” Justice Stevens “seem to be dropping gratuitous citations to Kennedy opinions,” perhaps in an effort to court the crucial swing justice.
On various possible nominees:
Maureen Mahoney: confirmable, but someone conservatives would be upset by.
Janice Rogers Brown: could be tougher to confirm (despite “getting high marks from her colleagues” on the D.C. Circuit).
Some conservatives might say that Supreme Court nominations are “the only thing that Bush has gotten right,” and essentially “dare the Democrats to vote down Janice Rogers Brown.”
Priscilla Owen: “getting high marks on the Fifth Circuit.”
**********************
All in all, it was a very interesting and enjoyable event. If JCG visits your city, we urge you to attend her talk.
We do know that she will be the luncheon speaker for the Federalist Society’s D.C. Luncheon this Friday. Details here. It should be a very interesting event.

Jan Crawford Greenburg autographs our copy of Supreme Conflict — with a thoughtful and personalized inscription. Needless to say, we were delighted!
EXCLUSIVE: Women, Minorities Top Bush’s Supreme Court Short List [ABC News]
Jan Crawford Greenburg and Supreme Conflict [Ethics and Public Policy Center]

Sponsored

Topics