Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly, it's true. But it is surely unexpected that a Supreme Court justice, of all people, would have to wait so long for deliverance from reckless cruelty. Over and over and over again, year after year since 1980, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had to endure the sight of her name carelessly rendered "Ginsberg" or some similarly awful facsimile in the pages of the Times. Would the paper deign, even once, to run a correction? No, it would not. Any formal objections were presumably, well, overruled. Until now.

Should we be worried that The New York Times, Newsweek and The Washington Post are buying out their old seasoned writers and leaving behind a bunch of young reporters who possibly don't know what they're doing? "No!" says Jack Shafer. According to Slate, these voluntary buyouts (also known as "If we pay you a large sum of money, would you please leave already?") are going to end up revitalizing journalism.

The first victim, or victor, of the New York Times buyouts is Pulitzer Prize winning legal journalist Linda Greenhouse. Greenhouse, whose overhyped news stories on the Supreme Court blockbuster summer rulings made her the Michael Bay of reporting, says she would have retired in a few years anyway. And at 61, she can already qualify for some senior citizen's discounts. But the departure comes less than two months after a public editor column parsed her marriage with preeminent military lawyer, Eugene Fidell.

New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse is afraid that if she appears on C-Span she might reveal the paper's secret agenda to force abortions on everyone. [NYP]