Linda Greenhouse's Reply Brief
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.
La Greenhouse continues:
"Some months ago, when I accepted the invitation to speak to a roomful of journalism professors, no one said anything about a nationally televised event. There is a difference between appearing before a room of 50 or so professors and speaking on national television, as I’m sure you recognize."
Oh, but is there? In a world where, say, one (or more) of those professors might have a blog?
And then she takes on the argument that, by virtue of her past C-Span appearances, she should be estopped now from objecting:
"I did not agree to do the latter, and notwithstanding my willingness—as you note—to appear on C-Span dozens of times in the past, whether to do so remains, it seems to me, a matter in which I still have a say. I am neither a C-Span employee nor a public official. My past voluntary appearances do not give C-Span rights in perpetuity to broadcast events at which I appear, whether I agree or not. In fact, you may or may not be aware that over the years I have from time to time declined to appear at events that I had assumed were to be private when, at the last minute, I was informed that C-Span coverage was a fait accompli."
Diva-licious! Did the C-SPAN folks just get... (Green)housed?
In closing, we leave you with this Linda Greenhouse Rap, posted in the last thread by a commenter:
Listen up C-SPAN, you won’t televise me
I’m hard like a thug, ain’t got a face for TV
I’m here to diss the Court, and tell it like I see
Can’t be thinkin’ bout the pundits or the FCCMe and Tony K., we used to be tight
He’d use his swing vote to fight the good fight
Now he’s cutting back Brown, overruling Dr. Miles
And he even took me off of his speed dial
I just can’t stand that kinda disrespect
Don’t tell me you stopped feelin’ my Greenhouse EffectIf I see my remarks on the ATL
I’m kill all you suckaz, send you straight to hell
The Greenhouse Effect (Updated) [Columbia Journalism Review]
Earlier: Linda Greenhouse Strikes Back (Capri Pants Sold Separately)
Comments
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 03:32 PM
Slow news day, huh?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 03:32 PM
Lat - You've been away from practice a little too long...
This would be Greenhouse's Opposition brief.
C-Span will get to submit the Reply brief.
Posted by: It is I | August 10, 2007 03:40 PM
No, Linda's opening brief was her demand that the proceedings not be televised.
Lat was a Ninth Circuit clerk, a Wachtell associate, and an AUSA who specialized in appeals. I think he knows which brief is which (and maybe he even knows the color scheme, too).
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 03:41 PM
First to write first
Posted by: jackass | August 10, 2007 03:41 PM
what an ugly woman
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 03:45 PM
Let's set the political bickering that we all know is coming aside for one second and join together on something I'm certain we can all agree on:
Linda Greenhouse is an extraordinarily unattractive woman.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 03:46 PM
3:41:
With all do respect, I just filed a Statement of the Items Comprising the Record this morning at 9:37.
Linda's demand that the proceedings not be televised was simply an indication that an issue in controversy was present.
Stick to the papers.
Posted by: It is I | August 10, 2007 03:50 PM
She's making an ass out of herself. I think the desire for attention for some people overwhelms the senses.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 03:51 PM
She's way too hot not to be on national TV
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 03:53 PM
Maybe she didn't want to be on TV because she was having a bad hair day and wasn't prepared to be on TV from a physical standpoint. Oh, wait, that doesn't make sense . . .
Posted by: Snarky McSnarkster | August 10, 2007 04:04 PM
"With all do respect, I just filed a Statement of the Items Comprising the Record this morning at 9:37."
hopefully you spelled everything correctly in that Statement.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 04:07 PM
I don't understand. Why is she OK with speaking in front of 50 people live but not an additional 15 via the C-SPAN broadcast?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 04:08 PM
Lat,
It was funny when you had the regular Greenhouse picture above the fold and the Gangsta Greenhouse pic below the fold, next to the rap. It's not funny to have the Gangsta Greenhouse pic twice.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 04:09 PM
Come on, folks. Give a lady a break. She was obviously just having a bad hair day and didn't feel like fanning the "JCG is foxier" fire.
Posted by: Armchair Litigator | August 10, 2007 04:11 PM
I do respect you, It is I. I do, I really do!
I used to think that the grammar and spelling police comments were really obnoxious and just a depressing sign of what dorks lawyers are, but it amuses me that half of the grammar and spelling mistakes are found in posts where someone is criticizing Lat or another commenter for being a moron -- often for spelling or grammar mistakes. The cycle never ends!
Posted by: anon | August 10, 2007 04:12 PM
Being on C-Span is like appearing on the surveilance footage at Target for chrissake. I can't imagine what the big to do is about
Posted by: It is I | August 10, 2007 04:12 PM
The house-berg battle was better
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/04/linda_greenhouse_god_save_the.php#comment-33278
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 04:17 PM
Wait ... "fait accompli"? Give me a break. It is like Greenhouse has a real law degree or something. Or was ever a lawyer, for that matter.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 04:21 PM
3:41: Also, note that Lat states the letter was "in response to C-Span."
Response = Opposition
Lat - Have a little respect for your posters and a dash of intellectual honesty and correct this mistake.
Posted by: It is I | August 10, 2007 04:21 PM
It is I: Reply briefs RESPOND to arguments in opposition briefs.
With all do [sic] respect, you've been pwn3d.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 04:24 PM
This is weirder than I thought. Does anyone else notice that when you view this post in the main page (i.e., with the other posts, comments invisible), you get the regular Greenhouse pic, but when you click to read the rest of the post below the fold (with comments visible), the regular Greenhouse pic is replaced by the Gansta Greenhouse pic?
Posted by: 4:09 | August 10, 2007 04:28 PM
It Is I:
One more thing. The language you quote -- "in response to C-Span" -- was not Lat's choice of words. It's part of the block quote from the CJR.
Posted by: 4:24 | August 10, 2007 04:29 PM
Lat knows I am right.
Moreover, if he doesn't want to see a giant zipper race across the rim of the Grand Canyon reducing it to a desert surface not unlike any other, he will correct his mistake.
This is a warning.
Posted by: 4:24 | August 10, 2007 04:40 PM
Lat knows I am right.
Moreover, if he doesn't want to see a giant zipper race across the rim of the Grand Canyon reducing it to a desert surface not unlike any other, he will correct his mistake.
This is a warning.
Posted by: It is I | August 10, 2007 04:40 PM
LG is in the green hizouse. They'll put her on C-Span over Souter's dead body boyee.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 05:06 PM
Right - if any of you d-bags thought that you were reporting on some research to one or two partners only to be told at the last minute that you had to present it to the whole firm, you wouldn't be bitching to no end.
One of the worst traits attorneys develop is being contrarian for no good reason.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 05:27 PM
More Nina Totenberg!
Posted by: Divagate enthusiast | August 10, 2007 07:20 PM
I'd just like to say that I really enjoy the increased use of "d-bag." Soon it will burn out, but let's all savor it for a while, shall we? D-bags?
Posted by: mr burns' unnamed lawyer | August 10, 2007 07:50 PM
Jack Shafer adds his $0.02 over at Slate.
http://www.slate.com/id/2172067/
Posted by: Alex | August 10, 2007 10:20 PM
I take my hat (or do-rag) off to the writer of the Linda Greenhouse Rap. Genius.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2007 10:41 PM
Please no more pictures of LG. She's just too damn ugly.
Posted by: Limp pimp foreva | August 11, 2007 12:08 AM
Lamest. Rap. Ever.
And don't hawk your posts on Facebook, that's just annoying.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2007 01:26 AM
"Please no more pictures of LG. She's just too damn ugly."
And each successive photo is uglier still.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2007 09:10 AM
1:26 = LG
Have a sense of humor, Linda. The rap is awesome. And you look good in a do-rag.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2007 10:55 AM
Horse-faced comes to mind... although that might be a bit insulting to horses...
Posted by: anon | August 11, 2007 12:50 PM
"One of the worst traits attorneys develop is being contrarian for no good reason."
No, it's not.
Ordinarily, I'd sympathize. I view this, however, as a case of a member of the media getting a taste of her own medicine. Many media types have no regard for the privacy of people they cover, and they argue that anyone who does anything to call attention to himself is a "public figure." Moreover, events that are "open to the public" are often televised with no notice to the speakers. Greenhouse apparently threw a hissy fit when she was subjected to the sort of treatment her colleagues dish out on a regular basis.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 10:23 AM