The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants. Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”
Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldn’t stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience.
Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony.
One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES action declared: “Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits.
The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.”
Words fail.
I actually don’t think this is a big deal. One would hope that the media would do this kind of investigation especially for a nominee for SOTUS.
The left are desparate to stop him from making the highest bench in the land, they will do anything. See the low down and dirty tricks they will resort to inorder to win?
I agree … Word fail. Once again the NYT has lived down to the level I expect of them. Bottom dwellers!
It’s worse than that. The fellow they have on it, Glen Justice, is the same guy who desperately tried to make John Kerry look good in September of 2004, claiming a Swift Boat Veteran commercial was factually wrong.
Turns out the Swifties were exactly right — John Kerry had met with the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong in Paris, and only with them, not both sides as Justice had claimed in an attempt to make Kerry look diplomatic instead of treasonous.
The Times had to print a correction.
And this is the guy they’ve entrusted with the task of rooting around adoption records looking for dirt?
http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/109269.php
The New York Times never ceases to amaze! Words do fail. I’m wonder what possible problem or conflict of interest there could be with adopting children from a latin american country and being a Supreme Court judge. The mind boggles.
I’ll remember this one the next time you people are screaming for an investigation of someone YOU don’t like, which, given your usual state of high dudgeon and constipated irritability, will probably be in another three or four days.
As for Roberts, I have no idea what the NYT might be looking for, and until I do, I’m remaining agnostic.
Since the kid isn’t wearing a white glove,(with sequins on it), while doing the ‘moonwalk’:what is their problem?
This is dispicable. The ACLU should be all over this, but they wont.
Herb,
What part of English don’t you understand? The Times isn’t investigating JOHN ROBERTS – it is investigating HIS CHILDREN. The anger you’re reading about here has nothing to do with people looking into Mr. Robert’s background. It’s about trying to dig up dirt on his kids, who have not been nominated for the Supreme Court, are not politicians, and cannot in any way be considered reasonable targets for an inquisition. (And if you feel otherwise, please provide detailed justification……..)
If you’re going to holler that we’re being unfair for criticizing an investigation, you can at least get your facts straight. It all starts with reading and paying attention to what people have actually written, not what you assume they must have said because of their political leanings.
“The Times isn’t investigating JOHN ROBERTS – it is investigating HIS CHILDREN.”
Says who? Says Matt Drudge. Between Drudge and the mainstream media, I know who has been proven, time and again, to be more reliable.
In any case, you’re the one who’s having trouble reading. The Drudge snippet that Kate quoted makes it clear that what the NYT is investigating (if indeed they are) is the circumstances of the adoptions, not the kids themselves. Surely you understand that distinction.
I have no idea whether there’s anything there worth investigating, but it qualifies as an investigation of Roberts himself, not his kids, however much you try to reframe it.
Moral: don’t accuse others of not getting their facts straight when your own error is so glaring.
So the ‘circumstances of the adoptions’ is somehow removed from the children, Herb? They’re not part and parcel? Looking into this doesn’t affect them in any way, bring their names into the public arena? Sorry, that’s totally illogical. If an investigation is made into the adoption of ‘Child A’, then it must, by definition, involve ‘Child A’ – whether it concerns the circumstances of the adoption, or personal information on the birth/adoptive parents. You can’t separate the child from the adoption.
Based on your reasoning, information on the medical records of Robert’s children should be fair game for an investigation, since that pertains to the circumstances of payments by HIS health care plan – right? C’mon, tell me what the difference is.
And, since their clothes, toys, housing and food have all been paid for by HIS salary, then it’s fair to investigate what they wear, what games they play, where they live, what they eat, etc, etc, etc………
That’s where logic like ‘it’s about the circumstances’ leads to. And after the sniping that the MSM has already done on the Robert’s kids (like dissing about their clothes and their son’s dancing at the President’s press announcement) the likelihood of further nastiness is quite real.
And I stand by my original comment regarding getting facts straight. You start *your* statement by saying that the Drudge report is incorrect – because your personal logic says it is. That’s certainly your right, but you can’t impose that interpretation on anyone else. To then turn around and say that *your* disbelief of Drudge means the rest of us are misinterpreting things is – well – frumious.
Herb, thanks for clarifying that important point – that investigating the kids “qualifies as an investigation of Roberts himself”. I guess another way to put is that nothing is off limits including little children. Aside from the moral repugnance of your assertion, what relevance could the results of such an inquiry have on Roberts’ ability to pass judgements as a SC justice? What facts about the children could possibly lead to the disqualification of Roberts? Let’s assume for the moment that the child is the spawn of satan himself, that he can rotate his head 360 degrees and take over human souls. So what???
Well I guess you could argue demonization by proxy. That would seem sort of fitting considering the ultimate goal of those in the liberal media is not to uncover pertinant facts relevant to his abilities, but to demonize.
Don’t be obtuse, Herb. The Times has already admitted they were investigating the adoption records. And Brit Hume reports that they weren’t merely asking questions, they were trying to get into sealed adoption records.
Despicable.
Steve Verdon;
“did the New York Times do any investigation into Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg children? Or what about Justice Stephen G. Breyer?”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11534
Children are off-limits. Who says? Anyone with half a brain.
Unless they were kidnapped, bought as slaves or through other criminal matters, or were obtained in a manner which shocks common sense, leave them alone. The matter has been much better stated that I can do already. But inately, I just know they aren’t to be brought into adult maatters as the Left is doing.
“Unless they were kidnapped, bought as slaves or through other criminal matters, or were obtained in a manner which shocks common sense, leave them alone.”
Which might very well be what the Times is looking for.
They’re being awfully selective in their concern for certain children.
Translation: Times reporters did investigate the adoption of the Roberts children, but failed to dig up any dirt, so they did not go to publication. What a shame.
I am a poor writer, even less a thinker. Let me just quote from Cassandra at Villanous Company, with Kate’s indulgence. If improper Kate, please delete with my thanks.
“One wonders: did the Times also look for psychiatric records to see if Mr. and Mrs. Roberts had ever been in marriage counseling?
Surely that, too is relevant to Judge Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court? Or does the Times recognize any fundamental right to privacy, other than that pertaining to abortion?”
I don’t think we, most of us, want The Left defining what should be private and who are entitled to such privacy. The Times certainly tries.
Over at the online home of the Senate Democratic Caucus, there’s a place to submit questions you’d like to ask John G. Roberts. Some of the posters at Free Republic seem to have one in mind: What does that “G” stand for, anyway?
Wonkette joked about Roberts’ heterosexual bona fides a couple of weeks ago: He went to an all-boys school! He wrestled! He played Peppermint Patty in a production of “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown”! But with the revelation today that Roberts helped gay rights activists persuade the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado’s anti-gay Amendment 2 in the 1990s, some voices on the right seem to be taking the question of Roberts’ sexual orientation a little more seriously: Roberts came to the aid of gay rights activists … he didn’t get married until he was 41 … his children are adopted … could it be?
“This is really upsetting news,” writes a Free Republic poster identified as lady lawyer. “Roberts is a guy who has been positioning himself for power all of his life. Is the late-acquired wife just part of that positioning?” L.N. Smithee chimes in: “I think lady lawyer has a significant concern.” Smithee seems troubled that Roberts didn’t list the Colorado case in his response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s question about pro bono work he has done. “Why was this not on his CV?” Smithee asks. “Why did he attempt to hide this?”
To be fair, lady lawyer allows that it’s “more than possible” that Roberts is “not gay,” even as she says it’s reasonable to posit the question. “I think it is important if anyone in a position of power has an agenda to overturn all traditional morality to accommodate his or her favorite perversion,” she writes. And most of the Freepers do seem more concerned that Roberts might be sympathetic to homosexuals than afraid that he is one. “A good lawyer does not work for free in a landmark case to advance gay rights,” writes lawdude. “A liberal RAT does.” A poster called jtminton speaks for a lot of his conservative compatriots: “If this guy’s pro-gay,” he writes, “I don’t want him anywhere near the Supreme Court.”
Sean Hannity-NY Slimes Confirms Adoption Records Search on John Roberts Children
Posted by gopwinsin04
On 08/05/2005 12:49:31 PM PDT � 18 replies � 914+ views
NY Times/Sean Hannity ^ | 8/5/05 | Sean Hannity
The old grey whore just copped to it. Congrats to Matt Drudge for shining the light of truth on the cockroaches!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457766/posts
Earth calling Herb – Earth calling Herb – Drudge has been confirmed (sorry that your opinion was wrong) so will you please be so kind as to respond?
Thanks, your adoring audience.
The NY Times has confirmed that the Roberts’ children were *not* repeat *not* aborted.
Now, somebody was whispering on the blogworld grapevine a little something in my ear about some intemperate remarks that you yourself Kate made about somebody’s child on New Years eve. And indeed… it would appear that you again brought up this person’s children a month ago over on Angry in the Great White North’s website.
Words Fail indeed.
You complete and utter sick pathetic fraud, Kate.
How do you live, carrying around so much twisted hypocricy and vile bitterness woman?
It must be sad to wake up each day being… well… *you*
What’s it like to wake up knowing you can only get your jollies by posting hateful lies about your betters while hiding under an assumed name?