As has been widely reported, New York Times Supreme Court correspondent, Linda Greenhouse, has hung up her spurs and taken an “academic” position at Yale Law School, after accepting a very sweet buyout.  Greenhouse had covered the court for 30 years, nabbing some Pulitzers along the way.  She’s now going to be “journalist in residence” at Yale, teaching courses in law and media.

But the question of who would fill her shoes remained a mystery until yesterday, when Lyle Denniston at  SCOTUSBlog disclosed an internal announcement that the new SCOTUS maven will be Adam Liptak.

“We think we have found exactly the right person to succeed Linda. I am pleased to announce that Adam Liptak will be the paper’s Supreme Court reporter. If Adam’s time as national legal correspondent is any measure, he will continue to make coverage of the court one of the paper’s distinguishing features, something we do better than anyone else in the country.

“Since joining the newsroom in 2002, Adam has covered the Valerie Wilson case and the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He has roamed the country bringing life to musty legal cases and fights over judicial ethics, and produced major projects on the criminal justice system. He has also written a must-read column, Sidebar, that has been cited on the floor of the Senate, in Federal appeals and district court decisions, in editorials in The Times and The Washington Post, and on the Colbert Report (I kid you not).

“Before joining the newsroom, Adam was one of our lawyers. And before that he was an associate at the New York firm of Cahill Gordon and Reindel. The resume is impressive. But what impressed me most in my discussions with Adam was his remarkable ability to talk about the law with sweep and simplicity. It was striking that these are the precise qualities that make Linda such a great reporter.”

While it’s not exactly shocking the Liptak got the post, since he wrote the Sidebar column that I so dearly love to  skewer on a regular basis, the choice remains curious.

I’ve been fairly critical of Liptak’s columns in the past, not so much because of his bias but because of his superficial approach.   Althouse makes an interesting and revealing comment in this regard:

The resume is impressive. But what impressed me [i.e., Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet] most in my discussions with Adam was his remarkable ability to talk about the law with sweep and simplicity.

Is simplicity really what is needed?  Arguably, it’s a good thing to be able to take a complex subject and present in a simple, comprehensible manner.  But that’s not what Liptak does.  Simplicity isn’t the word I would have chosen.  Simplistic is more precise.

Half the time, I get the impression that Adam Liptak doesn’t quite get it.  While I’ve often commented that he tells half a story, leaving glaring gaps in his presentation of issues where other views or arguments are required to flesh out the ideas, I tend to think that he’s simply unaware that there are better, stronger or countervailing points of view. 

When it comes to the Supreme Court, there is no shortage of complicated issues and arguments that one must recognize to appreciate what’s at stake and what they do.  It’s an onion, with layer upon layer of nuance, scrutinized by observers within an inch of its life.  Certainly in the blawgosphere, we discuss these cases to death, fighting over every word and arguing every angle. 

Some may well believe that the lawprofs, and even some lawyers, take things too far.  We see issues where none exist, and collateral consequences that only a legal mind could imagine.  But its this depth of recognition that allows one to “see” the issues and problems, and then vet the mass of thought for the points worthy of discussion. 

My focus, naturally, has been primarily on Liptak’s work relating to criminal law issues.  More often than not, he’s been disappointing.  He’s never had a feel for criminal law, and some of his articles have defied any semblance of reality.  His  bail bondsman piece was one particularly egregious example of truly bad work.  But his article on felony murder, which demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter, is the type of piece that makes me think he’s over his head.  At least on criminal law issues.

The New York Times, for better or worse, is a paper of some substantial influence.  People will read what Liptak writes and believe that his words accurately reflect the significance of matters before the Supreme Court.  This is a huge responsibility.  His words will forge attitudes and beliefs.  People will take sides based on what he writes, and believe that they understand based on what he says.  To the extent that freedom of the press is a pillar of effective democracy, Adam Liptak has been placed in a pivotal role.

Is Adam Liptak up to the task?