In Defense of Nina: Jan Crawford Greenburg
In the wake of the quasi-scandal that the divine Dahlia Lithwick has dubbed Divagate, we've received several defenses of that legend of the Supreme Court press corps, NPR's Nina Totenberg.
We previously shared with you an email from Tom Goldstein, who once interned for Totenberg (just as Cate Edwards is doing this summer). Today we bring you celebrity correspondence from another SCOTUS superstar: Jan Crawford Greenburg!
Check out her message, which includes a detailed discussion of seating arrangements in the Supreme Court press gallery, after the jump.
Here's what Jan Crawford Greenburg wrote (in response to an email from us asking for comment):
I saw the item in the Post this morning, so I'd already read your blog when I got your email. I'm on Nina's side, here. We have assigned seats for the big cases (I'm guessing this incident occurred on a pretty big day), so she didn't do anything wrong when she asked the person to move out of her spot. You have to sit where the Court tells you to sit.
Our source doesn't recall what cases were being heard on the day in question. Anyway, back to JCG:
Here's how it works: Each news organization that regularly covers the Court gets a "hard pass" that entitles one of its correspondents to sit in first two rows of press seats (the nice cushy pews that are to closest to Justice Breyer, so we have a good view when he rolls his eyes at Justice Kennedy). On major argument days, the Court's Public Information Office (headed by Kathy Arberg) assigns specific seats for all the reporters. When we check in before the arguments, they give us a little pink card with our seat number on it, and we have to give that to a Supreme Court police officer before we take our seats upstairs in the courtroom.
Assigned seats -- how elementary school! Does the PIO keep LG away from JCG, so Linda won't steal Jan's special pencils?
The regulars sit in Rows A or B -- those pews right up front, amazing seats just a few yards away from the bench. The other reporters who don't regularly cover the Court sit in the alcove or, worse, in the chairs behind the columns and curtains, where you can't see a damn thing (sometimes, someone from the PIO will stand back there during arguments and helpfully hold up photos of whichever Justice is talking, so no one confuses Kennedy with Souter).
HA, that's awesome. 'Cause all those old white dudes look alike.
That's for the major cases. For arguments on the second-tier cases, the Court just reserves Rows A and B for the regulars -- we can sit where ever we like. And on the cases no one really cares about, anyone can sit up there, even if you don't have a hard pass.It works well -- the PIO is organized and assigns the seats fairly. They mix up the seating assignments from argument to argument, so we sit in different places in A and B throughout the term (except the wires, which always are in the first seat on the aisle so they can dash out to file).
So the wire reporters (not Nina) are on the aisles. What a neat little factoid! And it makes sense. It wouldn't do at all to have some AP guy clambering over La Totenberg.
Anyway, that's the deal. (Please don't ask me about seating in the cafeteria, though!)Oh, and btw, Nina is a terrific colleague -- smart, funny, generous and always professional. She's been really helpful to me (and others) over the years. And I'd guess she gets her own Starbucks!
Say it ain't so, Nina, say it ain't so! No self-respecting diva fetches her own Starbucks. Especially when she has a potential First Daughter for an intern!
Names & Faces: Totenberg's Courtside Seat [Washington Post]
No Conflict? NPR's Nina Totenberg Takes on John Edwards Daughter As Summer Intern [NewsBusters.org]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Nina Totenberg (scroll down)













Comments
Foist
Posted by: Last | July 18, 2007 10:04 AM
Nina Totenberg is a hack.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 10:07 AM
"Assigned seats -- how elementary school!"
Lat also thinks that assigned seats at sporting events and on airplanes are totally elementary school. (Thank goodness there's Southwest, huh?)
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 10:11 AM
Seats in the public gallery and in the Supreme Court bar section aren't assigned. It's "general admission."
Guess they just don't trust the reporters.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 10:15 AM
"[T]he nice cushy pews that are to closest to Justice Breyer, so we have a good view when he rolls his eyes at Justice Kennedy"
Oh JCG, we know you don't like them, but must you always pick on the liberal Justices?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 10:18 AM
Jan, Linda, Dahlia, Nina - are any SCOTUS correspondents not white women?
Posted by: anon | July 18, 2007 10:27 AM
10:18, I thought he was picking on Kennedy. ;)
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 10:30 AM
She had to make a joke about how close she was to SGB because that's who she's closest to. In a couple of years, she can make a joke about being close to SAA.
Posted by: anonymous | July 18, 2007 10:32 AM
The only one making this a scandal is Lat. God, he's such a queen sometimes.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 10:51 AM
So, to recap: Nina Totenberg was assigned that seat that one time, and another time a real estate agent forgot to tell her that her house would be showing and she didn't clean up the place beforehand.
Fascinating.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 11:14 AM
Of course this is trivial and silly. It's gossip.
If you want to read about the Iraq debate, go to the Washington Post. It's good.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 11:31 AM
Dude, the "first daughter" link includes more on Nina calling dibs on chairs, and not just in the SupCt, but in District Court as well.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 11:35 AM
It's not an issue of triviality and silliness; that's why I'm here. It's an issue of pointlessness.
But good job setting up a false dichotomy!
And hey, if you don't want to read blog comments about the pointlessness of Lat's posts, then don't read them. I'm sure you can find comments that are sufficiently praiseworthy elsewhere on this site.
See? I can do it, too!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 11:36 AM
District Court, too? Oh no! That changes everything! Thanks, dude!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 11:38 AM
Pointlessness is why this item got picked up in the Washington Post. And generated emails from Jan Crawford Greenburg, Dahlia Lithwick, and Tom Goldstein.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 11:40 AM
That doesn't even make any sense.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 11:42 AM
I found JCG's discussion of seating arrangements interesting. But I'm a SCOTUS nerd, so perhaps I'm in the minority.
Posted by: anon | July 18, 2007 11:46 AM
JCG's stock is rising in my book. She takes ATL seriously, she has a sense of humor, and she was informative. Where's LG's response?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 11:56 AM
JCG stock to $180K/share!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 12:12 PM
Ditto 11:56. JCG > NT >>> LG!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 12:16 PM
IM IN YUR KOURTS
STEELIN YUR CHAIRZ
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 12:38 PM
Does the PIO decide who gets to be the "dean" of the SC press corps?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 12:42 PM
To 10:15 AM: I used to have a reserved seat in the public gallery. I was a summer intern at an organization that's a regular S.Ct. amicus. I was there for every summer session (i.e., announcements of decisions). The people I worked for arranged my seating with the Marshal's office. I would report to the office, and someone would take me in through the right side curtain to my "assigned" seat. For a 2L, that was pretty heady stuff.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 05:14 PM
why is someone who didn't graduate from college covering the Supreme Court? couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people. John Roberts is a dolt.
Posted by: cd | July 19, 2007 12:43 PM
Jan got it basically right, though I don't recall the security guys holding photos -- only fingers (one for the Chief, two for Stevens, etc.). You get pretty good at identifying them by voice.
Posted by: bigmouth | September 21, 2007 06:36 PM