Supreme Revenge: Linda Greenhouse (interview) | FRONTLINE

Linda Greenhouse is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who covered the United States Supreme Court for nearly three decades for The New York Times.

Watch Greenhouse's candid, full interview conducted with FRONTLINE during the making of the May 2019 PBS documentary "Supreme Revenge."

Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Major funding for FRONTLINE is provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Ford Foundation. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation, the Park Foundation, The John and Helen Glessner Family Trust, and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation.

[johnr]

Really like these full interviews being available; gives even more perspective and context.

[lovely-mkrt]

This needs to be seen by so many more people. So factual and important

[narkelnaru]

These are such superb interviews. Partisan or not, the Democrats have always played defense on nominations. And that's a good thing, such also as in gerrymandering.

The Bork nomination is clearly one I wish had worked out better. But, only Republicans have made bad nominations (approved or not, such as Harriet Myers (?) whom W Bush nominated.)

Democrats should focus on their own work and doing their tasks fairly, because ideas only tend irretrievably towards liberalism and not conservatism.

Superb piece of "reporting." Thank you.

[davehunt]

Linda Greenhouse helps simplify it for me. I love her thinking and clear explanations.

[richardvsessions]

90% in and I realize - this is before the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation - which was McConnell denying the reality of instant replay and ignoring what everyone else could see - his toes were out-of-bounds, and refused to play by the rules that he and Lindsey and every other Republican agreed to play by. They were able and willing to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they would win. I don't want to play with that sort of opponent...heads - I win, tails - you lose.

[eriksmith]

Bork would not have been confirmed no matter how he answered the questions. Bork's views were well known from his appellate opinions and other writings.

[taylorbarrett]

To say originalism is to merely say separation of powers.

[John-sxmp]

I was in graduate school, recuperating from minor surgery, lying on the couch, watching the hearings. I understood economics and logical argument and something of law. It was clear that Bork was a genius who had a gift of explaining his complex legal questions clearly. And I realized for the first time that our elected officials are morons.

Greenhouse is apparently a bit dim in thinking that Specter was the bright guy, questioning the dummy, Bork. Specter was a bit of a loon, though he thought he was a great intellect. He was known to his colleagues in that way, as well, and over the years he proved it, over and over again.

Greenhouse said that Bork was not a brilliant legal mind, but a polemicist with cute turns of phrase. Sure. Back then, you got hired to teach law at Yale by being a polemicist with cute turns of phrase, not by being one of the top legal minds in the nation. He also published in the top legal journals.

His book on anti-trust was used as a textbook in economics GRADUATE courses in regulation. That is, the book is chosen by experts in the field of regulation as their text.

[vmcla]

5:09 “… long pause… “wonderful”. What is that, is he praising her answer?

[charlesnwarren]

Linda, you occupy a different realm than the rest of us. It's no wonder that everything the SCOTUS does comes to you as "silly and confusing." You've been that naive your whole life and career.

[gulftoad]

5:08 wonderful

It sounds like two friends talking.
I wish this level of friendliness was also given to Republicans and the news media who support them.

[ronaldbacker]

The problem with this doc is it plays both siderism. The Federalist Society is a small organization in each law school representing 1-3% of students. But it represents a near 100% of Republican judges. Republicans only pick from the most conservative of lawyers. On the flip side Democrats pick center right corporate lawyers. The 10% of truly liberal lawyers are not even in consideration. Where is the ACLU lawyer, or the Green Peace lawyer or The SPLC lawyer up for judgeship? Democrats did not start this fight, they fought back when it became clear that the Republicans had abandoned the idea of picking moderate judges, and would only pick from this tiny 1% of lawyers who are in the Federalist Society. The Dems pick from the other 99%. Which of these two process is radical?

Second, this docs fails to mention that the Republicans have had a majority of Judges since Reagan. But where the bar was set for considering conservative justice kept changing. Sandra Day O'Connor was a very conservative judge by any historical standard. The fact that she became a swing vote does not change that. It just shows how right the court moved with Republicans only picking people who were in their society of radicals. After she retired, Kennedy was the swing vote. Kennedy is on the record saying he uses the Federalist Society to find his clerks. Kennedy is more conservative than O'Connor, but than is the swing vote.

This idea that Democrats changed the game is nonsense. Democrats reacted to Republicans changing of the game in a radical way.

[surfstrat]

The reason that conservatives like myself opposed Merrick Garland was that he had a record of hostility towards gun rights. Gun rights are to conservatives what abortion rights are to liberals, so that is why we hung him out to dry.

[xrnchy]

"Greenhouse" ? did they ran out of all the names, that they named her Greenhouse ? :) just saying

[tylerminix]

I don't care where the public goes or "leans." I don't regard collective thought highly and the idea there's collective wisdom of individual stupidity is silly. The Constitution protects the people from the Government and even from themselves. We need a court that doesn't give a damn about public opinion.

Also, Ginsberg was also guilty of never answering anything and presenting herself as only a blank slate; even given her history with the ACLU. I understand the purpose of the documentary is to shed light on the single-minded (and correct) fight McConnell engaged in (and won) there should have been more mention that liberals were those responsible for initially poisoning the waters. There should have been more coverage of Ginsberg's and Sotomayor's comparatively brilliant treatment by conservatives.

The whole documentary is summed up by saying democrats began a game they couldn't win with short-sighted motives they didn't understand. They gambled and lost. McConnell should be proud irrespective of anyone's perception.