Why I'm in love with Linda Greenhouse...

In her Supreme Court Memo in yesterday's Times, she was talking about how often the Roberts court might overturn precedents, and she referred back to Arlen Specter's line of questioning in Roberts' confirmation hearings. Specter had asked Roberts if he agreed that Roe v. Wade was more than just a precedent, but a "super-duper precedent," because it had been revisited and reaffirmed in 1992. Then:

The nominee obviously knew exactly what Mr. Specter was driving at, but he gave
away nothing. He acknowledged the historical accuracy of the senator’s
chronology, but would not follow him to the land of “super-duper” precedents.

And this is why I'm in love with Linda Greenhouse.

(Incidentally, the lede was pretty awesome too: No Supreme Court nominee could be confirmed these days without paying homage to the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis,” Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Yet experienced listeners have learned to take these professions of devotion to precedent “cum grano salis,” Latin for “with a grain of salt.”)

Full story here.