July 2, 2016

More email from Linda Greenhouse: "Ann, I guess it's fair to say that each of us was right and each of us was wrong."

So, you may remember yesterday's post, "What Linda Greenhouse emailed me about what I blogged about what she wrote in The NYT about Justice Kennedy," in which I challenged Linda Greenhouse — who'd said "I would caution you against challenging my facts." The fact in question was whether Justice Kennedy should be given sole credit for writing "Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt," the first sentence of the main opinion in the 1992 abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was published by the Supreme Court as a joint opinion of Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, with no one person identified as having written that opinion.

Greenhouse had emailed me about an earlier post, where I'd said "Greenhouse misstates the authorship of Casey," and she took the position that she knew Kennedy wrote it, because she was there in the courtroom when the opinion was announced, and Kennedy led off and read that "no refuge" line. I didn't think one person reading part of the opinion was complete proof he'd written it, but what was devastating to Greenhouse's assertion was that the Court's announcement of the opinion was recorded, and the audio and transcription are available on line, and Justice Kennedy did not go first — O'Connor did — and the line "Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt" was never spoken at all.

Somehow, Linda Greenhouse — a journalist with great confidence in her facts ("I would caution you against challenging my facts") — had constructed a false memory!

How did Linda Greenhouse respond? Here, with her permission, is the new email:
Ann, I guess it's fair to say that each of us was right and each of us was wrong. I'll leave it at that, confident that your charming commenters will carry the torch. I have to say I'm really surprised at my mis-memory of the Casey hand-down -- I would have sworn it on a stack of U.S. Reports. And I take it that you agree there's not another person on the planet who could have written what Kennedy wrote -- neither your favorite passage nor mine. Linda
I responded:
Thanks. But I won't agree that no one else but Kennedy could have written that. What's the evidence? It seems to be the assumption that he did write that. I'd love to know the true story of how passages like the "jurisprudence of doubt" and the "heart of liberty" ones came to exist and to find their way into a case, but I would want real research into the subject. It's one thing to think up such lines, another to decide they belong in a case, and lines are drafted and tweaked. I wouldn't look at those lines and say obviously that part was a one-man job and Kennedy's that man.

Whatever happened to all the speculation that O'Connor brought a woman's insight onto the Court? What about the role of clerks? They're people on the planet too. And I'm curious -- as my original post showed -- about the mystery of the lack of mystery that you flagged when you said: "The dry, almost clinical tone could scarcely be more different from the meditative mood the Supreme Court struck the last time it stood up for abortion rights." It's a mystery I felt motivated to explore, not to make assumptions about. 
Confronted with proof that she'd made a mistake and after cautioning me about challenging her facts, Greenhouse took the position that she and I were both wrong and right, that somehow we'd come out even. I'm not agreeing to that. I didn't say anything that was wrong. I have a way of blogging that keeps me out of trouble like that. I don't make assertions about things I don't know.

Over to you, charming commenters.

150 comments:

n.n said...

Well... abortion speaks for itself. A human life evolves from conception a natural or elective (i.e. anthropogenic) abortion.

That said, the tendency of people to conflate logical domains, and roam outside of the scientific domain, needs to be addressed. An assertion based on faith (e.g. hearsay) or through inference is neither true nor false. Each logical domain intersects with the other, and what seems to be improbable or even impossible, may be both probable and possible. However, only statements, theories, etc. based on invariant evidence observed within a limited frame of reference can be considered in the scientific domain.

It all depends on how you frame it.

John Lawton said...

Charmed, I'm sure.

khesanh0802 said...

What a bulldog you are, Ann. When you are right never let go! It must be a hell of a shock for Greenhouse to be challenged. Like so many who live in NYC and its east coast neighbors she believes in her own omniscience and has lost the ability for critical thinking. It's a great thing when someone from bratwurst country can call her out.

Quaestor said...

You're both right! — the infantile solution.

Meade said...

Remember that time you and I had that argument and then it turned out you were wrong and I was right?

You don't? Oh. I guess I don't either.

— a commenter.

coupe said...

I think an anonymous clerk wrote it, you're both wrong.

Freeman Hunt said...

"your charming commenters"

Aw, shucks.

traditionalguy said...

Speech discipline is learned. Some have it, but most don't . It is rare. How does one get the habit? Being raised by perfectionist geniuses, or maybe just doing crossword puzzles without cheating.

Saying you are sure that you know something is a big damn deal.

fizzymagic said...

As I wrote before, Ms. Greenhouse has unintentionally revealed the entirely inappropriate arrogance of the so-called "journalism" profession.

Probably the most troubling take-away from this exchange is the clear evidence that Ms. Greenhouse is unable to distinguish her opinion from fact. As far as I can tell, Althouse is "wrong" because she didn't accept Ms. Greenhouse's opinion as fact.

I've been thinking recently about which professions have the highest self-regard to social value ratio. At the top of the list would be "professional" journalists and fashion designers, who consider themselves essential but in fact contribute little of value. At the bottom of the list would be nurses and tradesmen (plumbers, electricians, etc.) who contribute greatly.

Freeman Hunt said...

If someone doesn't like me now, I'm going to say, "Well, Linda Greenhouse finds me charming!" That will shut them up.

Original Mike said...

Doesn't she know you prefer to be called "Althouse"?

mtrobertslaw said...

The "At the heart of liberty..." quote is one of the silliest things I have ever read in a Supreme Court opinion. It reminds me of a freshman philosophy student trying to write something profound. Kennedy has a penchant for this kind of thing so it is likely that he wrote it.

David Begley said...

Typical NYT, Time magazine and Ivy League "one the one hand but on the other hand" inability to commit to a single version of "the truth." The truth is just so, so grey. Just like The Grey Lady.

The most important thing to note is that Greenhouse can't admit to a single factual error as shown by THE RECORD.

(FBI: Secretary Clinton: I hand you a deleted email from your private server in which you agreed to deliver $20m in State Department money to [insert foreign country] in return for a $1m payment to the Clinton Foundation. Secretary Clinton: Can't be true. Must be a fake email. I would never put a quid pro quo bribe in writing.)

The above being said Kennedy holds himself in high literary regard. He cited one of his own opinions as an outstanding piece of writing in a list of great works. Scalia, of course, called him out on the SSM case and labeled Kennedy's opinion as "mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages...."

Linda, the Ivy League Ruling Class is going to get its head handed to it in November with that Yale paragon of virtue and veritas at the top of your ticket.

/s/
Mr. Charm

The Bergall said...

"Nothing was right, and nothing was wrong" she said placing her empty glass down and staring off into the distance. - Anonymous

Mary Beth said...

Freeman Hunt said...

If someone doesn't like me now, I'm going to say, "Well, Linda Greenhouse finds me charming!" That will shut them up.

7/2/16, 3:10 PM


Yes, because they'll be wondering who she is and if she's someone they should know. Someone from the PTA? Or maybe church? Or that woman on the local news who always mispronounces things?

Rob said...

We should consider the possibility that "at the heart of liberty" is an homage to "from hell's heart I stab at thee." h/t Herman Melville, or Khan.

YoungHegelian said...

@fizzymagic,

Probably the most troubling take-away from this exchange is the clear evidence that Ms. Greenhouse is unable to distinguish her opinion from fact.


This is not the first time that Ms Greenhouse has had a public tiff over the fact/opinion distinction, especially when those "opined facts" in question turn out to be hers.

Most days, I long for a post-modern lefty who's honest enough to openly state his view that whatever facts may be, in the complexity of lived experience, they are few & far between if they exist at all. Such views are actually quite common on the post-modern left, but seldom owned up to outside of the clubhouse. For folks not trained in the nuanced textuality of post-modernism, it tends to be seen as "lying all the fucking time", & thus not helpful in the political arena.

MayBee said...

I have to say I'm really surprised at my mis-memory of the Casey hand-down -- I would have sworn it on a stack of U.S. Reports.

As long as she remembers she can get her facts wrong, even when her memory is certain....then we will all have won.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

"Well, Linda Greenhouse finds me charming!"

I'm sure you realize we were being dissed.

dreams said...

Charming, I think Greenhouse is patriotnizing Althouse's commenters which is also to patriotnize Althouse.

YoungHegelian said...

@dreams,

Charming, I think Greenhouse is patriotnizing Althouse's commenters.

Well, we already know we're hillbillies.

Then again, maybe Greenhouse was sent by the NYT to check out Laslo's handiwork to see if it could be turned into a daily column.

Freeman Hunt said...

What thing is she asserting that Althouse was wrong about? I see no indication in the email.

FullMoon said...

Hahahahahahaha

Made a note to myself long ago "Do not get AA mad at me"

Every once in awhile, I will inadvertently stumble upon an easier or more efficient way of accomplishing a common task. Then, I wonder how many other easier ways of doing other things I am not aware of. Hope Ms. Greenhouse in examining those other "seared in her mind" memories.

Freeman Hunt said...

Everyone is feeling so very literal today. Perhaps it's due to the approach of an especially earnest holiday.

Humperdink said...

If King Solomon was deciding which you charming ladies was in error, he would asked if it was OK to split the aborted baby in half.

Marc Puckett said...

The fact is that there is perhaps one person with whom I'm in regular, ordinary conversation at work, in real life-- not a friend or acquaintance I communicate regularly with via email &c-- who will know who Greenhouse is; lots of folks know who LeBron James is, or Kenny Chesney, or even Billy Bragg, but Linda Greenhouse? I don't think so. Still, even though I'm the least of commenters here, I'm going to use that 'charming commenter' epithet one of these days, ha.

In the spirit of giving Linda Greenhouse the benefit of the doubt, what does she imagine AA got 'wrong'?

YoungHegelian, I had totally forgotten about the Greenhouse at Harvard episode. Tsk.

Kathryn51 said...

Freeman Hunt said...
"your charming commenters"

Aw, shucks.

FM, as a long time visitor to Althouse (but infrequent commenter), I have always found your comments to be on the plus side of the charm scale. I could be wrong, but were you absent for quite awhile? Don't recall your posting in the last couple of years.

Unknown said...

"Doesn't she know you prefer to be called "Althouse"?"

Why should she know this? I doubt she is a daily reader.

Original Mike said...

It was a joke, Unknown.

Unknown said...

Charming.

surfed said...

I can do charming.

eric said...

Is calling us "Charming" sort of like the southern phrase, "Bless her heart"?

Original Mike said...

"Charming."

What was wrong with that?

surfed said...

Ms Greenhouse was eviscerated and with her enteails spilling out across the keypad she's thinking "we'll call it a draw" as she loses conciounesses from loss of blood. I dont think so. Even someone as dull as me - a surfer! - knows a bloodletting when he reads one. Whata' ya' gotta do Althouse - deliver her own head on a platter to her?

Unknown said...

Not a thing, I said it was charming. Whaddya want? A cookie?

Original Mike said...

Cookies are good.

Humperdink said...

Eric asked: "Is calling us "Charming" sort of like the southern phrase, "Bless her heart"?

Yep, directed at us cretins.

Humperdink said...

Via Wiki: "Greenhouse has expressed her personal views as an outspoken advocate for abortion rights and critic of conservative religious values,[17] although the New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent said that he has never received a single complaint of bias in Greenhouse's coverage.[17] In 1989, she was rebuked by Times editors for participating in an abortion-rights rally in Washington."

Okrent, meet Pauline Kael, but then I suspect you already know her.

Unknown said...

It's charming how much Althouse commenters love a fight and then imagine the opponent has been gutted. Sore winners aren't exactly charming. Saying you never make a mistake or are ever wrong invites fate to make a fool of you soon thereafter. Pride cometh before the fall. No one is infallible.

(See?)

William said...

"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt." These aren't such memorable words. I wouldn't put them up there with "Give me liberty or give me death." Any literate person could have written them, and most people would find the phrasing forgettable and a little murky........So far as the facts go, Althouse comes out ahead, but in the pending defamation suit, Greenhouse can claim that she did not act in reckless disregard to the truth........Interesting that she has a false memory of hearing these words spoken. Her fantasy life seems a bit barren. I was sexually molested by Marilyn Monroe when she was my babysitter. Now that's a false memory worth having. Eros finds refuge in doubtful memories.

Original Mike said...

So, you're saying no cookies then?

Joshua Mize said...

This was a very interesting series of posts.

Qwinn said...

Shorter Greenhouse, lacking arms and legs: "Alright, we'll call it a draw."

Watch out, though, she could still bleed on you.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Bushels baskets full of Linda Greenhouses shoving their condescending "facts" down the throats of decent, ordinary people, thus Trump. Ironic.

surfed said...

Gawd I want to call it a "cat fight" but I'm thinking the last thing I want to do is anger Althouse and her pen. But something very 1950's in me rises to the surface at the prospect of a good girl fight. I'm guessing I need retraining to fit into this brave new world.

Big Mike said...

I@Althouse, turning it over to U.S., your charming (?!?!!) commentators? Then let me state for the record, in my most charming style, that LINDA GREENHOUSE IS 100% WRONG and too conceited to admit it. Stronger message to follow.

Now I hate to mansplain* but has either of you ladies considered actually asking Judtice Kennedy who it was that actually authored the words in question? He is, after all, technically alive (lungs pumping air, heart beating -- and bleeding -- but brain has been dead for years). Or perhaps asking Sandra Day O'Conner?

_________
* No I don't -- I revel in it!

Unknown said...

Breaking news. Off topic, sorry, not sorry really. Looks like no charges will be filed against Hillary Clinton.

rhhardin said...

It's the greenhouse effect.

Unknown said...

Does Trump ever apologize or admit he's wrong?

Humperdink said...

Unknown asked: "Do you think that because Althouse has had a public tiff with Greenhouse that all of a sudden Althouse changed her mind and now isn't pro choice?"

No.

Unknown asserted: "It's nice how UW hasn't rebuked Althouse for her political views. "

I am not clear what AA political views are. She voted for Obama. Beyond that, she appears to hold broad political views. (Unlike Greenhouse, I could be wrong here.)

Regarding the Greenhouse biases: I thought it hilarious that no one, not one, not a single solitary soul, commented to the Okrent doofus that Greenhouse has a bias. But of course we talking about the NYTimes here - who vote in more of a block than our African American community.

Laslo Spatula said...

"I'll leave it at that, confident that your charming commenters will carry the torch."

So Greenhouse wants some Laslo.

That's how I read that.

Who wouldn't want some Laslo?

I am an ointment, available in creme or gel.

I am Laslo.

Unknown said...

Oh lord Greenhouse, now you're in for it. Laslo's mind is writhing and will soon be churning out some prose for you.

Martha said...

How can we get James Taranto to cover this Greenhouse false memory and Althouse's supremacy in his Best of the Web Wall Street Journal column on Monday?

This deserves a wider audience than the usual charming Althouse commenters.

Headline could be: Althouse takes Greenhouse to the outhouse.

rhhardin said...

On green and knowing, for Mrs. Greenjar

For when are we `knowing something'? Do I know (now) (I am, as it were, knowing) that there is a green jar of pencils on the desk (though I am not now looking at it)? If I do know now, did I not know before I asked the question? I had not, before then, said that or thought it; but that is perhaps not relevant. If someone had asked me whether the jar was on the desk I could have said Yes without looking. So I did know. But what does it mean to say `I did know'? Of course no one will say that I did not know (that I wasn't knowing). On the other hand, no one would have said of me, seeing me sitting at my desk with the green jar out of my range of vision, ``He knows that there is a green jar of pencils on the desk,'' nor would anyone say of me now, `He (you) knew there was a green jar ...' apart from some special reason which makes that description of my `knowledge' relevant to something I did or said or am doing or am saying (e.g., I told someone that I never keep pencils on my desk ; I knew that Mrs. Greenjar was coming to tea and that she takes it as a personal affront if there is a green jar visible in the room ...)

Humperdink said...

@Laslo You may want to check out a pic of Ms. Greenhouse.

Unknown said...

Martha, both women would come out looking bad.

Michael K said...

"Pride cometh before the fall. No one is infallible."

Says the clueless Hillary troll who is going to be very disappointed.

Unknown said...

LOL, Michael K, why would I be "very disappointed"? On the one hand if Clinton had to drop out, Sanders would take her place. On the other hand it appears that there will be no charges filed against Clinton. I am predicting that a lot of righties (such as yourself) heads will start exploding soon.

Bob Ellison said...

I was wrong today, more than once.

Unknown said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/286384-trump-sources-say-clinton-wont-be-charged

"Trump: ‘Sources’ say Clinton won’t be charged."

Humperdink said...

@Unknown: I agree. There will be no indictment here.

There is one unknown (ha) here. We do not know if Obama holds a grudge against Bill and/or Hillary from 2008.

The Cracker Unknown said...


"Breaking news. Off topic, sorry, not sorry really. Looks like no charges will be filed against Hillary Clinton"

Corrupt Democrats won't file charges against corrupt Democrats? Imagine our surprise and disappointment.

Unknown said...

The FBI will not be recommending charges.

YoungHegelian said...

@Unknown,

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suite, is it?

The "sources" were anonymous sources speaking to, of all people, Donald Trump. This article is a Trump tweet & nothing more.

You also missed the part where Trump thinks that Hillary is really guilty as sin, & it's just one more example of how "the system is rigged".

Do you think that anyone here would be surprised with a whitewash? Hell, Trump & his supporters seem to be expecting one.

We know HRC & her coterie are guilty. We know this because collectively we have the experience & background to know what's what when it comes to keeping secure government documents secure. Our only point of contention is whether there's enough honesty left in the federal bureaucracy to get even a matter this black & white right. I still have some hope in the probity of the FBI & Comey. Others are further down the path of despair, & don't.

Hagar said...

"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt," is just pretentious blather. Why fight over it?

Fernandinande said...

Hagar said...
"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt," is just pretentious blather. Why fight over it?


Why not fight over pretentious blather? And what's that saying about academic squabbles...?

AA: the Court's announcement of the opinion was recorded, and the audio and transcription are available on line, ...

Busted!

AA: and the line "Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt" was never spoken at all.

I'm glad you won this one, you little fact challenger!

Michael K said...

" I still have some hope in the probity of the FBI & Comey. Others are further down the path of despair, & don't."

I have a feeling that the FBI will step up even if Comey caves. I have a family member who is an agent for almost 20 years and I think there is an FBI grapevine saying she is guilty.

Paul Zrimsek said...

This is important. If we can find out how "Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt" came to be written, we may be able to prevent it ever happening again.

The Godfather said...

The phrase sounds like Kennedy's bullshit. But what difference at this point does it make? When Kennedy and O'Connor and all their followers and apologists arrive at the judgment seat they will be shown the vast multitude of souls that were denied their life on earth because of what Kennedy et al. did.

Yancey Ward said...

Like others, I have read that line two dozen times, and I have no clue what is meant by it.

Also, Greenhouse's offer of a draw would be like Michael Spinks offering one to Mike Tyson after round 1. Greenhouse is a sore loser.

Yancey Ward said...

Well, if Trump is claiming his sources say Clinton won't be indicted, it must be true! Of course, Trump doesn't want Clinton indicted- he would have a harder time defeating another candidate. Now, if they want to wait until after the Democrats hold their convention, I bet Trump's sources will have a different opinion. In other words, Trump is tweaking CNN's nose. I can't believe they fell for it.

Fernandinande said...

I remember hearing Carlos Slim say that he's not happy about this.

gadfly said...

@khesanh0802 said...
What a bulldog you are, Ann. When you are right never let go! It must be a hell of a shock for Greenhouse to be challenged. Like so many who live in NYC and its east coast neighbors she believes in her own omniscience and has lost the ability for critical thinking. It's a great thing when someone from bratwurst country can call her out.

Sorry, but someone else made assumptions here. Ann was raised in New Jersey so she is, in a way, an east coast neighbor of Greenhouse and Ann is an NYU Law School graduate. I personally spent some time living in NJ and commuting into the City and I saw very little bratwurst until I moved to Wisconsin (Manhattan delis are not big on brats). I would judge that Althouse experienced something similar in the way of sausages but I will not go so far as to put my foot out on that limb.

rhhardin said...

Liberty is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

rehajm said...

Clearly threatened by Althouse and her commenters thet are...

Rusty said...

Is there any chance that the two of you could settle this in a kiddie pool filled with jello?

rehajm said...

There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns...

Ann Althouse said...

"Now I hate to mansplain* but has either of you ladies considered actually asking Judtice Kennedy who it was that actually authored the words in question? He is, after all, technically alive (lungs pumping air, heart beating -- and bleeding -- but brain has been dead for years). Or perhaps asking Sandra Day O'Conner?"

I assume both of them (and Justice Souter) would say it's co-authored by all 3. That's how it was presented and that's what it is. That's what a good judge or a judge who wants to be perceived as good would say. No need to ask. That would be the answer. It's the predictable, orthodox, respectable answer, and a humble judge would give it and so would one who was politically ambitious.

shiloh said...

Althouse cons continuing to obsess about the FBI and Hillary notwithstanding, re: Greenhouse/emails/abortion = meaningless minutiae.

jacksonjay said...

Bitch still don't know who she's messing with? One smackdown wasn't embarrassing enough for her. She came back for more?

Rob McLean said...

"I would caution you against challenging my facts."

How much of an arrogant jerk does someone have to be to realize that a statement like that just p!sses people off? If someone had said that to me, I'd be challenging their facts all day every day.

Amadeus 48 said...

I think this entire group needs to revisit Anthony Kennedy' s academic background. My thesis is that he took a Western Culture course and fixated on Percy Bysshe Shelley's Defense of Poesy and its famous, gnomic line, "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world". When Kennedy got to SCOTUS, he carried with him a secret and unacknowledged agenda--if he could just get enough poetry into the court's opinions, then a majority of the nine could legislate anything! Shelley said so!

Who says studying the canon of dead white males is worthless? Take that, Linda Greenhouse!

Sebastian said...

"charming commenters"? Who ya callin' charming, lady? I resent that. Certainly a gross overgeneralization. Clearly from a NYT "journalist" who hasn't done her homework. I mean, anyone who has been around these parts for more than a day or two knows that at least some commenters here are far from charming. Some comment like they don't even care. We leave detailed proof as an exercise for the reader, as the mathematicians would say.

DanTheMan said...

I suggest that Greenhouse should marry Neil DeGrasse Tyson. They can spend their years together reminiscing about things that never happened.
I guess they could invite John Kerry over as well, so he can share his seared memories, too.

Birkel said...

I tell anybody who wants, to please correct me because I would prefer to learn. How else can one learn but to wrong?

I have a feeling Ms. Greenhouse suffers epistemic closure and believes there are no new facts to learn.

Finally, the problem with a lack of diversity is exemplified by Ms. Greenhouse. She is not confront by people different from herself. She fears what is unknown to her. And she cannot abide the other.

R. Chatt said...

Somehow this whole thing reminds me of that saying, "Do you want to have a relationship, or do you want to be right?" (I hate that saying BTW.)

That's the best I can come up with for Linda's side.

Seriously, I can't fathom how Althouse was wrong and Greenhouse was right unless Greenhouse thought Althouse wanted to be friends or should want to be friends. Greenhouse is a major big shot in the law literary field, after all.

Ann Althouse said...

"How much of an arrogant jerk does someone have to be to realize that a statement like that just p!sses people off?"

You have to think about what kind of environment she is immersed in that she would think it was a good idea to write to me that way. I can understand why you might speak like that in person to produce submission in someone who is challenging you. But in writing the other person has so much time to perceive the affront, feel motivated to respond, and to construct a careful answer, using resources to check the facts.

In this case, I was I just going to quickly write something showing the email, which I thought was plenty. It wasn't a big deal to me. But then I checked out the recording and it got tremendously interesting. I was amazed in this context to have uncovered such a blatant misstatement right after being cautioned not to challenge her facts.

Ann Althouse said...

@Amadeus 48

LOL

Ann Althouse said...

"Seriously, I can't fathom how Althouse was wrong and Greenhouse was right unless Greenhouse thought Althouse wanted to be friends or should want to be friends. Greenhouse is a major big shot in the law literary field, after all."

That's what I meant by "what kind of environment she is immersed in." It's interesting the way power works, but I've been always been naturally resistant to that kind of thing. It's not my style. I am suited to the lone blogger way of life, and I'm not looking for any "friends" in that sense of the term.

cubanbob said...

Althouse plus 1
Greenhouse minus 1

Lesson:never assume when it comes to matters of law a law beat journalist should have not assumed they were going to out argue a law professor.

Michael K said...

"Althouse cons continuing to obsess about the FBI and Hillary notwithstanding,"

Shiloh, you should read about Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. More obsessing might have done some good. This country has been far too casual about intelligence and the loss of secrets.

You could stat here and learn a bit.

I don't believe that Hillary is a spy but there were lots of people who tolerated and ignored all the warning signs around Ames.

What Hillary exposed through her arrogance and ignorance is probably a treasure trove of US secrets, that will paralyze any attempt to deal with enemies for the next decade.

If she should become president in spite of all that has occurred, she would be about as open to manipulation as Henry Wallace would have been after Roosevelt died in 1945.

anovalogic said...

My memory is seared: Greenhouse made a fool of herself with her (false) arrogant and boastful caution to not "challenge her with her facts," then had her face smeared with egg by Althouse (like James Cagney smeared that grapefruit in the face of Mae Clark in The Public Enemy [1931]). Yes, it was that intense.

Greenhouse's charm drips from her soul like sour grapefruit juice dripped from the face of Clark, mixed with her sweet tears of humiliation.

No false memories here...

F said...

Sebastian:

"Who ya callin' charming, lady?'

"Who ya calling lady, Charming?"

Jonathan Graehl said...

I have seen this insane behavior before. Not exclusively from women.

There's a sort of soul who is always right in his/her own judgment or at least posturing.

Infuriating.

My more honest+immediate response: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU....

Rob McLean said...

You have to think about what kind of environment she is immersed in that she would think it was a good idea to write to me that way.

An environment of arrogant jerks?

khesanh0802 said...

@gadfly I am well aware of Ann's CV. It is geographical location that is so important to these know-it-alls. One of the standing jokes among New Yorkers is there is nothing west of the Hudson (see the New Yorker cover). Bostonians being even more provincial are convinced there is no civilization west of the Charles! If Madison is not firmly enclosed by Bratwurst country I will eat my hat on a brat bun.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, thanks for womansplaining to me. ;-)

Robert Holmgren said...

From Greenhouse's Wikipedia page:
She has also faced criticism for a June 2006 speech at Harvard University criticizing US policies and actions at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Haditha. In it, Greenhouse said she started crying a few years back at a Simon & Garfunkel concert because her generation hadn't done a better job of running the country than previous generations:

And of course my little crying jag occurred before we knew the worst of it, before it was clear the extent to which our government had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other places around the world. And let's not forget the sustained assault on women’s reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism. To say that these last years have been dispiriting is an understatement.

Media critic Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post commented, "Don't those remarks, publicized last week by National Public Radio, go too far for a beat reporter covering such issues at the high court?" Kurtz quoted Greenhouse defending her comments, calling them "statements of fact," not opinion.

Saint Croix said...

your charming commenters

now she's going after the hillbillies!

oh shit, it's on, LG!

you're like a crappy phone from Korea!

Freeman Hunt said...

"You have to think about what kind of environment she is immersed in that she would think it was a good idea to write to me that way."

An environment full of people who aren't very curious? Where one needs not be worried that facts will be checked? Oh, the New York Times!

(For all you good Times reporters, I kid, I kid. For the others... well... let's talk about the weather now. There's all manner of charming conversation we could have elsewise.)

David Begley said...

"Greenhouse said she started crying a few years back at a Simon & Garfunkel concert because her generation hadn't done a better job of running the country than previous generations...."

1. Why would Greenhouse cry at a concert? Did she cry at the Supreme Court when Tony read his poetry from the bench?

2. Why would she report her crying to the world?

3. It is her generation of Ivy Leagurers - lead by the Clintons - who have been a cancer on the body politic since the 60's. Looking forward to Hillary's historic defeat. Historic I say.

/s/
Mr. Charm

TWW said...

The FCC has taken notice. Your blog is not covered by First Amendment rights as is the New York Times. There will be repercussions. This is your only warning.

Saint Croix said...

Not a thing, I said it was charming. Whaddya want? A cookie?

Ya'll be nice to the unknown liberal!

Unknown said...

"2. Why would she report her crying to the world?"

It was honest emotion. Why fault her for that? Althouse has reported to us via this blog, when certain things have brought her to tears. It always surprises me when Althouse admits to crying over something. It's endearing and makes her seem very human.

Birches said...

Haha. I'm glad I didn't miss out on this beat down.

Unknown said...

Jesus, you people are a violent bunch, charming.

DanTheMan said...

"I would caution you against challenging my facts."

"My" facts. She has her own facts, so she can have her own truth.

Johnny Sokko said...

Wow.she can't even save face properly.

Birkel said...

Better than that, DantheMan!!!!

She has her own facts and if you don't like those,she has others.

fizzymagic said...

Unknown said:

Jesus, you people are a violent bunch, charming.

I am beginning to believe that you are incapable of writing a post without a logical fallacy in it. Every.Single.Post from you in this thread has had at least one.

Or perhaps you are trying to look stupid? A troll kind of thing? Unfortunately, that would be both stupid and jejune.

In the unlikely event that you are serious, then you should know that it makes you look really, really dim.

Johnny Sokko said...

AA wrote: "
In this case, I was I just going to quickly write something showing the email, which I thought was plenty. It wasn't a big deal to me. But then I checked out the recording and it got tremendously interesting. I was amazed in this context to have uncovered such a blatant misstatement right after being cautioned not to challenge her facts."

Ann, it is the tip of the iceberg for journalists. Hubris and the desire to create a narrative.

When I graduated from law school, I clerked for a trial judge in a decent sized west coast city. It was a state court trial level clerkship, so it was not really prestigious. I did learn a lot about litigation and the practice of law. We had some bigger criminal and civil cases which attracted print journalists and tv news people and it was shocking how often they mispresented the evidence and facts from trials. Some of it they didn't comprehend and other times it was just to make the story more interesting or to perpetuate a narrative. I then thought about other subjects newspapers cover - science, technology, et al and the potential for misrepresentation of those stories.

Johnny Sokko said...

Perhaps Unknown is Miss Greenhouse?

DanTheMan said...

If only Ms. Greenhouse was unknown....

Sammy Finkelman said...

AA: I assume both of them (and Justice Souter) would say it's co-authored by all 3.

I would think maybe that one or all would say it's confidential, and they don't go into what the court does not make public, but not something like that.

But it is possible that somebody might say, or a clerk.

There might be a clue in Justice Blackmun's papers

https://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/blackmun/

See also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/04/us/documents-reveal-the-evolution-of-a-justice.html

In the spring of 1992, Justice Harry A. Blackmun's struggle to preserve the right to abortion he had articulated for the Supreme Court two decades earlier was headed for bitter failure.

Five justices had voted in a closed-door conference to uphold provisions in a restrictive Pennsylvania abortion law. Roe v. Wade was in peril.

Then, suddenly, everything changed. A letter from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whom Justice Blackmun had long since written off as a potential ally, arrived at his chambers.

''Dear Harry,'' the letter began. ''I need to see you as soon as you have a few free moments. I want to tell you about some developments in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and at least part of what I say should come as welcome news.''


I think the oher justices did not like what he did. Still, maybe some former clerk wold know what wrote what and tell, or perhaps has already told.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Even if Justice Kennedy had read those lines, how would that prove he was the original author? I don't understand that. (Linda Greenhouse sounded like she didn't have any better evidence than that Justice Kennedy spoke those words from the bench.)

Now you say those words weren't read by anyone. Aren't full opinions read when they are read? Or what's the practice?

Linda Greenhouse can claim, that nevertheless, she feels she is right in assuming that Anthony Kennedy wrote those particular words. But that would only be an opinion. (or perhaps she could say that she must have learned it in some way she forgot.)

When did Linda Greenhouse first claim that Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that? If she made a mistake about hearing him say that, I think she would want to know how and when she got that idea. She'd want to trace back her steps.

Sammy Finkelman said...

>> 2. Why would she report her crying to the world?

She's supposed to have gotten the feeling the world was not a better place than before her generation became active in affairs like she had anticipated. It's nostalgia for the future that used to be that, she can say now, never happened.

We're supposed to be able to tell what Simon & Garfunkel song provoked that. I don't know enough about their songs to tell.

All I might know is really one song, Are you going to Scarborough Fair.

The music is rather sad, but I'm told is actually taken from a Shabbos zemirah.

Saint Croix said...

The Althouse/Greenhouse Kerfuffle Re-Imagined As Watergate

Bob Woodward
Carl Bernstein
Ben Bradlee
Katharine Graham
c/o The Washington Post
1301 K Street
Washington DC

Dear Bob and Carl and Ben and Kate,

I guess it's fair to say that each of us was right and each of us was wrong. I'll leave it at that, confident that your charming readers will carry the torch. I have to say that I am really surprised at my mis-memory of the 18 and a half minutes--I would have sworn it on a stack of U.S. Reports.

sock it to me,

Tricky Dick

p.s. Sorry about that "tit in a ringer" thing. And I liked the movie, although the guy who played me was horrible!

Bob said...

The internet has taught me several things to avoid:

Arguing with Althouse over the derivation of a word,
with Lileks over anything to do with Judy Garland,
with Stacy McCain over feminist doctrine, and with
Volokh over anything.

Rusty said...

So. No jello wrestling , then?
Damn.

Danno said...

Martha said...How can we get James Taranto to cover this Greenhouse false memory and Althouse's supremacy in his Best of the Web Wall Street Journal column on Monday?

This deserves a wider audience than the usual charming Althouse commenters.
Headline could be: Althouse takes Greenhouse to the outhouse. 7/2/16, 4:48 PM

Anything for Jame Taranto send to opinionjournal@wsj.com and I have contributed in the past.

wildswan said...

"your charming commenters"
Another false Greenhouse memory.

And did you know that "each of us" can be rephrased as "each and everyone of us". So that maybe is why "each of us was right and each of us was wrong" - because in the crowd of Greenhouse eachs one of them agreed with Althouse while all the Althouse eachs thought each and every Greenhouse hadn't done the research which was (each and every time) wrong.

Bud Norton said...

"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt." Who would want to admit they wrote that? I much prefer Judge Learned Hand's "he spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right," something foreign to Kennedy's thinking.

Martha said...

charming Commenter Danno, I thank you for that tip.
I sort of knew Best of the Web cast a wide net for contributions .........


Fernandinande said...

Bob said...
The internet has taught me several things to avoid:


Never play cards with a guy named "Doc".

Danno said...

Althouse has a wide variety of charm in her commenter population, ranging from those banned from the comments all the way to Meade, who became Ann's Prince Charming.

Moneyrunner said...

"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt." What does that even mean? What is “a jurisprudence of doubt?” Jurisprudence is a system of law; the philosophy or science of law. Doubt is thinking that something is unlikely. It’s a nonsense sentence masquerading as something with meaning.

Bill said...

The Greenhouse windows are broken, the plants within are withering from exposure . . .

Bob said...

Let me be my charming best here.

What a pompous, arrogant bitch that Linda Greenhouse is!

Bob said...

Linda Greenhouse is a modest woman with much about which to be modest.

Don Allen said...

Althouse's mistake:

"Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up... you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help." Animal House

And from "Into the Woods"
"I was raised to be charming, not sincere ... " Prince Charming.

Bob said...

On 7/2/16, at 4:23 PM, Unknown said,

"It's charming how much Althouse commenters love a fight and then imagine the opponent has been gutted. Sore winners aren't exactly charming. Saying you never make a mistake or are ever wrong invites fate to make a fool of you soon thereafter. Pride cometh before the fall. No one is infallible."

Were this on Megan McArdle's blog, it would surely earn a healthy count of miliblighters!

RigelDog said...

In a world where a certain reporter is a true professional:
Ann, thank you for calling my attention to my error regarding Justice Kennedy as the author of this quote. I truly remembered it differently and would have sworn such on a stack of US Reporters! I apologize for not checking this fact before publishing it and before asserting it again in my email exchange with you; I will be making the appropriate correction in the Times, with credit to your research. Regards, Linda.

Gahrie said...

"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt." What does that even mean?

It means:

"Yeah, we know the logic behind Roe is ridiculous, but we aren't changing our minds, and we're getting tired of telling you so."

mccullough said...

False memories find refuge in reportage of doubt

Yancey Ward said...

RigelDog,

Exactly!

Corky Boyd said...

This is another case of using the prestige of the medium Ms. Greenhouse wrote for (The New York Times) to validate her assertions. You caught her just as bloggers caught Dan Rather who thought his reputation and the reputation of CBS News would carry the day. Facts are facts. It appears her ego won't accept those facts.

D.D. Driver said...

It is fair to say that you were both right and both wrong. Take it away Mr. Simpson.

https://frinkiac.com/gif/S03E20/884679/888850.gif?b64lines=IEl0IHRha2VzIHR3byB0byBsaWUtLSBvbmUKIHRvIGxpZSBhbmQgb25lIHRvIGxpc3Rlbi4K

Humperdink said...

Bill said: "The Greenhouse windows are broken ...... "

Greenhouse gas, under pressure, has a tendency to cause that.

Jupiter said...

Ann Althouse said...

"I assume both of them (and Justice Souter) would say it's co-authored by all 3. That's how it was presented and that's what it is. That's what a good judge or a judge who wants to be perceived as good would say. No need to ask. That would be the answer. It's the predictable, orthodox, respectable answer, and a humble judge would give it and so would one who was politically ambitious."

You don't think it even remotely possible that they might simply assert what memory tells them is true? Indeed, you think that the truth would play no role whatsoever in their decisions as to how to respond to a question of historical fact? Could be, I guess.

Jupiter said...

Ha. Googled Linda Greenhouse (yes, for the picture).

Fifth response;

"In the news
More email from Linda Greenhouse: "Ann, I guess it's fair to say that each of us was right and each of us was ...".

Beldar said...

Re Prof. Althouse's statement: "I don't make assertions about things I don't know."

That's a lovely aspiration, and I don't doubt that you believe it of yourself; I'd say the same for myself, as would most other people, I think.

If so, all of us are wrong at least some of the time.

See, that's me doing it.

Beldar said...

This formulation, analyzed through a Rumsfeldian lens, also fails to take into account unknown unknowns. Surely at best one can avoid making assertions about known unknowns, if one aspires to this formulation.

Beldar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beldar said...

Also, re Greenhouse doubling down:

That's kind of Gary Hartish, isn't it? Back in the days when Democrats still cared whether their nominees were sexual predators or enablers thereof, 50-something and married Sen. Hart, a presidential hopeful, taunted the press, when asked to comment on rumors of his improprieties: “Follow me around. I don’t care. I’m serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They’d be very bored.” Then the went sailing with the 20-something Donna Rice on the Monkey Business and posed for photos with her in his lap. She was very photogenic. People like Greenhouse speculated on whether Hart wanted to get caught.

Me, I don't think that's it. I think instead that Greenhouse is Clintonesque: She wills herself into believing that everything she says is true because it is she who is saying those things. That overrides all other reality. Truth, like laws and taxes, are for little people.

Greenhouse is not an honest reporter. Hasn't been for decades, in my opinion. This is not an isolated incident, but it's drolly noteworthy that she engaged in the discussion about her disingenuousity so disingenuously.

Martha said...

It is the NARRATIVE.
Like Obama's White House, Greenhouse cannot let the objective facts get in the way of the narrative. She has her own facts and you better go along.

Saint Croix said...

The hardest part is naming the damn scandal!

greenhousegate

ivorytowergate

heartoflibertygate

badpoetrygate

falsememorygate

Iwastheredamnitgate

Idon'tdislikekennedygate

troikagate

catfightcatfightgate

skeweredbratgate

Saint Croix said...

Now when I think of AA I'm going to think of the Energizer Bunny.

And you thought she was picking nits.

And she keeps going and going and going and oh shit, she wins!

veni vidi vici said...

Unsurprisingly yet disappointingly graceless response from Ms. Greenhouse.

Freeman Hunt said...

Thank you, Kathryn. I don't comment as often anymore, but I love to do it when I can.