Greenhouse v. Greenburg: The Catfight Continues
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.
LUNCHEON TALK BY LINDA GREENHOUSE AT WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
I thought Linda Greenhouse spoke extremely well. She spoke about justices' movement on the ideological spectrum, either becoming more conservative or more liberal. The course material was her book Becoming Justice Blackmun, of which the firm bought hundreds of copies. Cha-ching!
She discussed various predictors (attributed to various scholars) regarding ideological movement, including whether the justice is new residents to the DC area (those who have prior DC experience are less likely to change their positions in the context of DC culture), whether the justice has prior executive branch experience (those with prior experience are less likely to change their ideology), and any life-changing events that the justices have experienced (e.g. Justice Thomas's confirmation hearings). She indicated that Justice Thomas is unlikely to become more liberal over time because his defenders on the right during his confirmation hearings so firmly anchored him to that ideology. Her conclusion seemed to be that Justices Roberts and Alito are unlikely to change their ideological stances over time based on the first two tests (both have prior DC experience and both worked in the executive branch).
The Q&A is where it got particularly interesting. Note that all quotes are from memory. Anything not in quotes is paraphrased.
On her access to the justices: She doesn't think she has more access than anyone else, and she has very little access directly to the justices. She doesn't really have any sources among the clerks. To the extent she has an inside track on what cases will be heard, it's from her experience paying attention to the docket.
On Bush v. Gore (in response to a question by Governor Cuomo, who is Of Counsel at the firm): "Justice Scalia says that we should all get over Bush v. Gore, and I'm trying to do that. (Jokingly) I try to do whatever Justice Scalia says. "I like to think of Bush v. Gore as a bad hair day." She basically thought of Bush v. Gore as a situation where 5 justices believed they needed to resolve a situation, found federal jurisdiction, and made their decision. "And obviously four justices disagreed." She had some interesting commentary on the fact that people thought the two sides of the Court would never get along again after Bush v. Gore, but they came back and it was business as usual, apparently because they realized that they needed 5 votes to get anything done and you can't hold a grudge forever.
On the release of Justice Blackmun's papers (as described in her book): Justice Blackmun's instructions were that his papers were not to be released until 5 years after his death. What Justice Blackmun did not anticipate was that the Court would be the same Court at the time of the release of his papers as at his retirement. She thinks the members of the Court were taken aback by the release of the papers because there were bench memos, discussion of other members of the Court, etc., that were unusually candid.
On the idea that justices become more liberal as they get older because they're tired of being criticized in the media and they want people to write nice things about them: "You're referring to the Notorious Greenhouse Effect." "This is the idea that justices become more liberal as they get older because they want the east coast liberal media, such as the New York Times, to write nice things about them in their obituaries." She was skeptical of this as an explanation for ideological movement.
On TV cameras in the Supreme Court: "I'm agnostic on this." But she finds it odd that the justices themselves decide which cases are important enough for audio to be released. Good point! She's going to tell this directly to the Chief Justice at an upcoming brunch. (Don't get too excited...it sounds like the brunch is for all Court correspondents).
***********************************
We thank our tipster for this detailed write-up of what must have been a very interesting presentation. Good stuff!
Earlier: All About... Jan?
Greenhouse v. Greenburg: This Queen Bee Will Not Buzz Off
Comments
They should have a rhyme battle, like in 8 Mile
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/04/linda_greenhouse_god_save_the.php#comment-33278
And then this Hedges troll should get in the same car with jonb and Loyola 2L and drive off a cliff
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 01:09 PM
Does anyone honestly think Thomas is an ideological heavyweight? Really? I mean, unless you have some sort of agenda that requires he be something other than what he is? I haven't met the guy but know a number of people who have spent time with him and the most generous thing I've heard is that he can (if in the right mood) be a very interesting guest speaker in front of a group of 8th graders.
Posted by: Anon | May 24, 2007 01:28 PM
"A very interesting guest speaker in front of a group of 8th graders..."
No, that's Breyer. SGB talks to every group, even students at top law schools, like they're in junior high school.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 01:32 PM
1:28 --- don't read opinions much, do you?
Posted by: anonymous | May 24, 2007 01:34 PM
Linda is just jealous about how smoking hot JCG is (at least, by print journalist standards).
Posted by: Anon | May 24, 2007 01:35 PM
Thanks for the rampant sexism. Greenhouse disagrees with the substance of Greeburg's book and that's catty? If both these authors were male, there's no way in HELL you'd be going into paroxysms about catfights.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 02:02 PM
If JCG really said Thomas was the intellectual anchor of the conservative wing -- that would be worthy of a dismissive response. However, I think she just said he's as independent as anyone else.
David, in this feud how could you overlook the fact that JCG's husband is quite hot? I assume this is the right Doug Ginsburg (given his profession and expertise), though it may be an older photo or a particularly flattering one.
http://www.moneylaunderingconference.com/2005/images/speakers/Greenburg.jpg
http://www.moneylaunderingconference.com/2005/speakers.aspx
Posted by: mm | May 24, 2007 02:04 PM
2:02:
1. Read the prior links collected at the end of the post. These women have a history.
2. Male authors get mocked for petty feuds all the time. E.g., the John Updike - Norman Mailer - John Irving - Tom Wolfe mess.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 02:16 PM
2:02 took the words right out of my mouth. Two WIMMINS have a disagreement about something -- MEEEOWW!! I guess whenever two men have a disagreement, it's... a dogfight? Pigfight? Slugfight? Gee, wonder why I can't come up with a corrollary...
Although, in fairness, I suppose it is a pretty trivial thing to argue about -- Greenburg's conclusions only address, you know, the inner workings of our entire system of justice. Those womenfolk sure do waste their time on petty, unimportant issues.
Posted by: Some random bitch | May 24, 2007 02:20 PM
Could we have Article III Groupie guest-blogging about the Greenhouse v. Greenburg conflict?
If it works out, maybe Article III Groupie could post a few times a week.
Come on Lat, bring her back!
Posted by: A3G fan | May 24, 2007 02:24 PM
Ok, whatever about the women part. Would "pissing contest" be better? Would it be sexist if we used it about disagreeing gents?
Fancy Feast is hilarious. That is the moral of the story.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 02:27 PM
Seems like this long-winded "tipster" doesn't know much about publishing. Authors typically get only a fraction of a dollar on each book sold.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 02:32 PM
What is willkie's clerkship bonus?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 03:05 PM
After the Fancy Feast, she promptly crapped all over a newspaper.
Which was ok, because the New York Times pays her to shit all over the newspaper regularly.
Posted by: Pass the Kitty Litter | May 24, 2007 03:11 PM
"On TV cameras in the Supreme Court: "I'm agnostic on this." But she finds it odd that the justices themselves decide which cases are important enough for audio to be released"
Agnostic means noncommittal about the existence of god.
Pretentious types use it to mean indifferent or undecided about lots of other things.
I wonder if she tells people that she's "agnostic" about what toppings to order on her pizza.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 05:43 PM
5:43, Agnostic also means "a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something". I know this because I looked it up in a dictionary. But good try though!
Posted by: Anomaly | May 24, 2007 06:02 PM
3:11, you sent the Sprite gushing out of my nose.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 07:32 PM
Lat - that Fancy Feast line was one of your best ever. Bravo!
Posted by: anon | May 24, 2007 08:44 PM
Greenhouse = troll who lives under the Supreme Court steps and eats appellate attorneys who stay too far from the bench
Greenburg = unbelievably hot goddess who graces the Supreme Court with her brains and beauty
Where's the contest?
Posted by: Anon | May 25, 2007 09:35 AM
Lat,
Can we do a poll of Greenhouse vs. Greenburg?
Posted by: Anon | May 25, 2007 09:38 AM
Sadly, this is all about Greenhouse, not Eve. There is no catfight. It is about a reporter who admits she has little contact with the justices while the other seems to interview the whole damn court on TV. Greenhouse attacks Greenburg, attacks the Court and says she cries at concerts that remind her of the 1960s when judges were more progressive. Linda Greenhouse is a sad relic from a different age. The Times needs a new face at the Court.
Posted by: Anon | May 26, 2007 07:11 AM
First of all, what is the citation for the Linda Greenhouse quotation above? Was it recorded or noted verbatim?
A careful reading of Jan Greenburg's book or her opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal last January would reveal that she has never written, as Greenhouse supposedly said, "quite improbably and without any evidence, that Justice Thomas is the ideological heavyweight anchoring the conservative side of the court." What she did write, was that from his earliest days on the Court, Thomas was willing to be a lone dissenter, and even in those early days, he persuaded Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and even Justice Anthony Kennedy to his view in a couple of key cases. Greenburg also wrote that many journalists, not privy to the goings-on in conference, regularly wrote stories casting Thomas as "an intellectual lightweight." Contrary to the assertion that Greenburg makes her case without any evidence, she cited extenstively from the notes of the late Justice Harry Blackmun and the other Justices' own conference correspondence regarding those specific cases. In one of those cases, Hudson v McMillan, Blackmun's papers show that initially, Thomas was a solo dissenter until Scalia joined him. Ironically, it was that case that led Ms. Greenhouse's newspaper to brand Thomas as the Court's "youngest, cruelest Justice." If reporter Greenhouse did make such a statement as that quoted above--directly misquoting reporter Greenburg--and had she done so in the pages of the New York Times, she would be obliged as any journalist would, to issue a correction.
Posted by: read/write | May 27, 2007 11:53 PM
First of all, what is the citation for the Linda Greenhouse quotation above? Was it recorded or noted verbatim?
A careful reading of Jan Greenburg's book or her opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal last January would reveal that she has never written, as Greenhouse supposedly said, "quite improbably and without any evidence, that Justice Thomas is the ideological heavyweight anchoring the conservative side of the court." What she did write, was that from his earliest days on the Court, Thomas was willing to be a lone dissenter, and even in those early days, he persuaded Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and even Justice Anthony Kennedy to his view in a couple of key cases. Greenburg also wrote that many journalists, not privy to the goings-on in conference, regularly wrote stories casting Thomas as "an intellectual lightweight." Contrary to the assertion that Greenburg makes her case without any evidence, she cited extenstively from the notes of the late Justice Harry Blackmun and the other Justices' own conference correspondence regarding those specific cases. In one of those cases, Hudson v McMillan, Blackmun's papers show that initially, Thomas was a solo dissenter until Scalia joined him. Ironically, it was that case that led Ms. Greenhouse's newspaper to brand Thomas as the Court's "youngest, cruelest Justice." If reporter Greenhouse did make such a statement as that quoted above--directly misquoting reporter Greenburg--and had she done so in the pages of the New York Times, she would be obliged as any journalist would, to issue a correction.
Posted by: read/write | May 27, 2007 11:54 PM