Drudge: NYT investigates adoption records of SC nominee's children

[Maddy McCall]

No lectures about the evils of Drudge. Skinner said that it's a viable source and shouldn't be excluded from LBN. So, with that in mind, here's the article:


*****************


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN

**Exclusive**

The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

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 adoptions records are part of the paper's "standard background check."

When reached by phone Thursday morning, Glen Justice had no offical comment.

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.

more at www.drudgereport.com

[achtung_circus]

1. Where's the article? nt

[Maddy McCall]

2. Go to the front page, click on the link...

however, I copied the whole Drudge article from the site, except for a couple of sentences, so that people wouldn't have to visit drudge.

[nibbana]

55. There is no "real" article..It's Drudge...

Fuck Drudge...

[gatorboy]

3. So did Drudge report about when Bush went after McCain's child

in the 2000 race? I highly doubt he thought that was newsworthy.

[Maddy McCall]

7. I don't know. I don't follow Drudge that closely.

I think he's despicable in so many ways, but that the NYT is investigating Roberts is definitely newsworthy.

[CottonBear]

4. Why didn't they adopt American children?

I suppose there weren't any white infants available.

If all of these conservative Christians that prattle on about adoption would actually adopt children (the older, disabled and non-white children) or allow gays and single parents to adopt, then there wouldn't be so many children in need of families.

[Maddy McCall]

5. I thoroughly agree.

[Ambrose]

6. A lot of families adopt from foreign countries

because the red tape is usually less and (at least in some cases I know of) there was the sense by the parents that they were helping kids in very unfortunate circumstances.

Before you complain that we have kids here in similar conditions you might want to know that a coworker adopted a child from Russia and said they were kept in cribs in dark rooms all day with no play time or human contact except for changing and feeding.

I don't know what the story is here but but the fact that he adopted from Latin America doesn't sway me one way or the other.

[Maddy McCall]

8. That's not the "whole story."

I don't think there's any problem with him adopting from Latin America. Seems to me the Times would be looking at the manner of the adoption, perhaps the legality of it.

[Tempest]

9. 12 Romanian children adopted by U.S. parents have been killed

By abuse.

www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/ myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/12210399.htm

[Ambrose]

10. Understood. I'm just saying that of all the real issues that

can be reviewed on him, this one seems really lame.

Evil people exist everywhere, I'm just recounting what I know from good decent people who have adopted children from outside the US.

[CottonBear]

12. I agree that most people who adopt from overseas are good people.

It just irritates me when right-to-lifers (like Roberts and his wife) lecture everyone here in the USA about adoption and then go overseas instead of helping American children. That said, adopting kids from overseas who need good homes is not in itself a bad thing.

[Maddy McCall]

15. I agree completely, Cottonbear.

It's sad when American black children sit in homes waited to be adopted, but people like the Roberts will go to the four corners of the world to find a blonde haired, blue eyed child.

[Mike Daniels]

34. Dollars to donuts people on this board would have complained

if the kids had been black or any minority.

"He and his wife are just using the kids as a prop to mask that their Repuke asses don't really give a sh*t about minorities"....or any other such similar crap would have been the normal reaction if the kids had been anything other than white.

[conservdem]

36. You probably right, people would have made such complaints

here.

[me b zola]

93. Since we're making assumptions

I would assume that you would walk into someone's home as a guest and with a big fat broad brush make derogatory assumptions about your hosts.


Oh wait. I didn't have to assume, because that is what you have just done.

[conservdem]

111. Is Mike Daniels, with his 1000+ posts, a guest or a host? If he

was the latter, then I was merely concurring with a host.

I must admit, that having reread my post, I wish I had written "some peopled" instead of just saying "people." With that correction would my assumption have been wrong or right, in your opinion?

[Changenow]

72. If they had that would have been wrong.

No one has made the suggestion that there was a problem with the adoption of the children because the babies are white. The question is how he got them, that's fair, like it or not.

[SOS]

91. Wrong

Try to find a "complaint on this board" criticizing John McCain's adoption of a child from Thailand. The child Bush and Rove viciously used against McCain in South Carolina.
Iirc, DU opinion was favorable to McCain on this issue and extremely hostile to Bush and Rove for exploiting the child for political gain.

[City Lights]

108. FYI, McCain's daughter was adopted from Bangladesh. eom

[Bluerthanblue]

99. if they did, they'd be every bit

the hypocrite that 'pro-lifers' who are NOT willing to adopt the ... "unadoptable" american children are-

i'm a very fortunate EX-fundie- who is pro-life, but not through legislation, rather by caring for all life, even if it costs lots of verbally 'caring' people more than the breath it takes to 'say' they are for life-

i'm also the very FORTUNATE adoptive mother of a black 'special needs' son, who has taught me more about life, and the importance of living the talk, compassion, the horrors that human'kind' are capable of, than any amount of 'studying' could ever have accomplished. And i've had the joy of sharing my life, and increasing my family with one of the most wonderful human's ever born.

There will always be those who complain- or find fault- it IS about time we started in 'our own house' Indeed there are countless children in other countries who are suffering for homes- But why is it so much easier to see the suffering 'outside our boundries' and ignore the children who live all around us, longing for a 'lasting, caring home- a place to belong, and be safe?

Pretty FUCKING (and i only use that word when i'm irate in the extreem) that kids have to 'advertise' themselves right here in the US, trying to 'sell' themselves in thier desperate search for a chance to 'belong' -

Why do i hate us???? because we aren't what we know we can and should be- because we are lazy, selfish, and pampered gluttons.-

[Patchuli]

112. That's actually

about as stupid as Rush Limbaugh saying that Paul Hackett went to Iraq and served just to pad his resume to run for office in Ohio.

[shanti]

37. and they went to LATIN AMERICA

to find these blond, blue eyed children??

[Pachamama]

116. Think "Boys from Brazil"....

Yeah, those sure were the whitest, blondest, bluest eyed kids I've ever seen from Latin America! :eyes:

Not that there aren't blond aryan looking kids in Latin America, but they are usually the children of the Upper Class Argentinians, Brazilians, Chileans etc who are of European decent (some who came from Deutschland also at the end of WWII) and highly unlikely to ever find themselves being "adopted" outside of the family....

No wonder its being "investigated" (if that's even the truth)...

But I was shocked to hear that Roberts was able to adopt not just one, but two "white" babies....I have lots of friends who are wealthy and cant' have kids and the only way they can get a child (especially white) in the US is either a crack baby no one wants, a minority child w/ special needs or they go to China, Romania etc. to pick up their baby girl.

[hyphenate]

104. Today

I saw the cutest little black girl in a Subway while I was eating. I didn't see her "mother" right away who was ordering. When her "mother" and "grandmother" came over, they were white, which I thought was such a great scene. The little girl wanted to have the three of them sit together in a two seat table, and she wanted her mother to sit with her on the one side. I was immediately smitten with them. VERY cool. I was smiling when I left the place.

[Ambrose]

22. I agree with that as well. n/t

[shrike]

35. Rightly or wrongly, the baby Richard case scared a lot of people

Plus, older people have a hard time adopting in the U.S., especially if they want to parent a very young child. I know a couple in their early 40s who were informed that they were too old. Never mind that some women in their early 40s are still capable of bearing a child; they were too old.

I met another wonderful couple who adopted a Romanian boy because they were "too old" to parent an American child. He was a delightful, bright child. Malnourished and undersized when they got him, but even in that sad state he still had a big smile on his face when they held him. People who adopt overseas can do a lot of food.

[mtnester]

40. Our UPS guy and his wife do that.

They go to Eastern Europe and adopt those kids who are challenged medically, and will most likely die if left there.

Once they get back here, they are able to provide medical attention that will make them so much better. Maybe not cure them, but they won't die from lack of medical attention.

A child in an orphanage in this country will get medical attention, in many places in Eastern Europe, would never happen. I admire them for what they do.

Funny, I always know when they adopt another one...he disappears from our route for weeks, then comes back with pictures of his newest son or daughter.

[trogdor]

77. I'm waiting for the inevitable lecture about snowflake babies.

[Maddy McCall]

14. I don't think so. Considering the fact that the judge and his wife...

are intricately tied to the pro-life/adoption movement, it might be worthwhile to see if his adoption was handled ethically and legally.

[Nia Zuri]

45. Foreigners adopting African American children

There was a feature on 60 minutes a while back about French, Canadian and even Latin Americans adopting African American children who could not be placed. Absolutely shameful.

[stanwyck]

29. I always ask the anti-abortion people I know

how many children they've adopted.
So far....not one adoption.
They're so concerned about the babies. But about the children? Not so much.

[VegasWolf]

59. Humm, maybe he is more liberal than previously thought. He has plenty

of money and connections to have adopted white children if he wanted to. Freepers heads are starting to spin and turn purple.

[Ian David]

11. It is against Catholic law for an infertile man to get married. n/t

[Inland]

20. Of course it isn't.

You might be thinking that someone incapable of consumation can be married--which as far as I know, is pretty much the law too.

[Ian David]

42. Documentary spotlights Catholic denial of paraplegic weddings

Because marriage = 1 Woman + 1 Man (with a functional penis).

Documentary spotlights Catholic denial of paraplegic weddings

Flavia Fontes was talking on the phone when a headline in a small Brazilian
newspaper caught her eye:A paraplegic man was forbidden to get married by the
Roman Catholic Church because he was impotent. Even though Fontes, a Brazilian
filmmaker living in New York, was already immersed in another project, she
decided she needed to capture Hedir Antonio de Brito's story. The result is
"Forbidden Wedding," which premieres on the Sundance Channel at 9 p.m. EST
Monday.

De Brito was two weeks away from marrying Elzimar de Lourdes Serafim, a widow,
in August 1996, when he received a shocking letter from the local bishop
denying their application for a marriage certificate. According to canon law,
any man or woman who is impotent and unable to have intercourse cannot get
married. De Brito wrote a letter to Pope John Paul II to appeal the bishop's
decision, but didn't get a response.

<snip>
Their friendship and mutual acceptance - she had no education, he was in a
wheelchair - soon developed into romance and they decided to marry. Wedding
plans were well underway when a local priest asked de Brito during premarital
counseling if he was impotent and de Brito answered him honestly. The priest
told de Brito he couldn't marry the couple, which the bishop's letter
confirmed.

"If (de Brito) had left the issue in doubt, it wouldn't have been a problem,"
said the Rev. Dr. Bernard Olszewski, a canon law expert and vice president for
academic affairs at Hilbert University in Hamburg, N.Y. "Unfortunately, he gave
full disclosure. In a pastoral sense, it would have been better for the priest
to have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy."

More:
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=77128

[Inland]

78. Do you know the difference between impotence and infertility?

The first is inability to have sex. The second is inability to cause babies.

The article shows the church rule not to marry people who can't have sex. I think every state in the country says that a marriage that isn't consumated by intercourse isn't valid, so I'm not particularly shocked.

[Ian David]

80. Yea, in a prior post I cleared that up. I had mis-remembered the rule.

I also vaguely recall an argument in The Talmud over whether or not anal sex was a valid way to consumate a marriage. I forget what the outcome of that was.

[Inland]

84. And because you didn't ask in a snotty way, here's a law on consumation

FAMILIES
(750 ILCS 5/) Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.


(750 ILCS 5/Pt. III heading)
PART III
DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF MARRIAGE


(750 ILCS 5/301) (from Ch. 40, par. 301)
Sec. 301. Declaration of Invalidity ‑ Grounds.) The court shall enter its judgment declaring the invalidity of a marriage (formerly known as annulment) entered into under the following circumstances:
(1) a party lacked capacity to consent to the marriage at the time the marriage was solemnized, either because of mental incapacity or infirmity or because of the influence of alcohol, drugs or other incapacitating substances, or a party was induced to enter into a marriage by force or duress or by fraud involving the essentials of marriage;
(2) a party lacks the physical capacity to consummate the marriage by sexual intercourse and at the time the marriage was solemnized the other party did not know of the incapacity;
(3) a party was aged 16 or 17 years and did not have the consent of his parents or guardian or judicial approval; or
(4) the marriage is prohibited.
(Source: P.A. 80‑923.)

[Ian David]

86. Hmm... that's different but still interesting...

(2) a party lacks the physical capacity to consummate the marriage by sexual intercourse and at the time the marriage was solemnized the other party did not know of the incapacity;

That's a little different from what the church is saying.

That law says you can't be married if your partner doesn't know you're impotent.

Catholic canon law says it's invalid if you're impotent, period.

Presumably the church condemns it for one (or more) of the following reasons:

1) If you can't perform "conventionally," the only other options are "sodomy" of one sort or another.

2) Like a previous poster said, you usually can't know if someone is infertile until they actually have sex. However, impotency is pretty obvious. Especially if this canon law was written before things like sperm-counts and such.

In other words, is the canon law against marrying impotent persons based on a desire to ban non-reproductive (infertile) people or to prevent sodomy-- or both.

[Changenow]

82. Give a single example of a state that requires

consummation to validate a marriage.

[Inland]

83. Say please. nt

[mike923]

27. And i hear they sometimes eat their own children.*

[Ian David]

43. Welcome to DU and enjoy your stay

[mike923]

46. I've been here a long long time...

i just rarely post. I do like to point out idiotic opinions, when necesary.

[anotherdrew]

47. is it idiotic that you ignore his posted PROOF?

The Catholics are saying he should have lied or the priest shouldn't have asked. Why? Because they aren't allowed to get married by the church. Read the post before you get on your high-horse please.

[mike923]

54. His proof ...

was someone relating a story they saw in a Brazilian newspaper, that talked about how a guy was not allowed to get married because he was impotant.

No Catholic teachings were cited, no date or paper cited, it was highly suspicous. Does the Brazilian priest have an explaination, or do we only have to go off of what the documentary author says. Is this sufficient proof for you to assume that the Catholic Church bans impotent men from being married?

I have to wonder why it was posted. First of all, where is it said that Roberts is impotent? It seems like an awful leap in judgement. Second, why the slam on Catholism? Should Catholics be banned from being Supreme Court justices? Do we as Democrats want to distance ourselves from Catholics?

[Ian David]

62. Well, you seemed to imply an uncalled for accusation of bigotry

I apologize if I've misread you.

The fact of the matter is, I missed a small distinction between impotency and infertility, to which I have owned up.

In any case, Catholics don't eat babies on Fridays during lent.

And dude, don't forget, we're all on the same team here.

:grouphug:

[Ian David]

66. July 11th 2005 is a long time? n/t

[mike923]

70. I read this board every day...

and have since i discovered it 4 or 5 years back. I see no reason most days to post, and for that reason, i never registered.

I took the time to fill out the form, and have been a "posting member" for a month.

Still, while i continue to read this board every day, i don't post that often.

I will jump in when things get me riled up. The thought that our best chance to get Roberts rejected is to hopefully find something shady in his adoption is something that will rile me up. And taking the tangent from there that Roberts must be impotent, is equally disturbing. The leap from that major assumption that the Church bans those men from getting married, well, that allows me to step in with a post.

I'd rather not post.

[Ian David]

74. Sorry, no insult to you or to catholics was intended.

You know, plenty of gay men adopt children...

[mike923]

76. if this is an attempt at humor...

it's not bad.

[seriousstan]

39. You cannot build an informed democracy out of people who will believe in

You cannot build an informed democracy out of people who will believe in little green men from Venus, but apparently you are willing to try.

Here's something else to try, inform yourself before you post rubbish and you won't look so foolish.

[Ian David]

44. I stand corrected. It is impotent men, not infertile ones who can not wed.

Because marriage = 1 Woman + 1 Man (with a functional penis).

Documentary spotlights Catholic denial of paraplegic weddings

Flavia Fontes was talking on the phone when a headline in a small Brazilian
newspaper caught her eye:A paraplegic man was forbidden to get married by the
Roman Catholic Church because he was impotent. Even though Fontes, a Brazilian
filmmaker living in New York, was already immersed in another project, she
decided she needed to capture Hedir Antonio de Brito's story. The result is
"Forbidden Wedding," which premieres on the Sundance Channel at 9 p.m. EST
Monday.

De Brito was two weeks away from marrying Elzimar de Lourdes Serafim, a widow,
in August 1996, when he received a shocking letter from the local bishop
denying their application for a marriage certificate. According to canon law,
any man or woman who is impotent and unable to have intercourse cannot get
married. De Brito wrote a letter to Pope John Paul II to appeal the bishop's
decision, but didn't get a response.

<snip>
Their friendship and mutual acceptance - she had no education, he was in a
wheelchair - soon developed into romance and they decided to marry. Wedding
plans were well underway when a local priest asked de Brito during premarital
counseling if he was impotent and de Brito answered him honestly. The priest
told de Brito he couldn't marry the couple, which the bishop's letter
confirmed.

"If (de Brito) had left the issue in doubt, it wouldn't have been a problem,"
said the Rev. Dr. Bernard Olszewski, a canon law expert and vice president for
academic affairs at Hilbert University in Hamburg, N.Y. "Unfortunately, he gave
full disclosure. In a pastoral sense, it would have been better for the priest
to have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy."

More:
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=77128

[HockeyMom]

13. I hate to say this, but

I think if they had adopted two very Latino looking kids, there would not be half the press there is. Or if they had adopted them from this country. It just makes you wonder how much "influence" was bought to get two blue eyed, blond children from Latin America. I think that is where all this is coming from.

[Maddy McCall]

16. Yes. Same thing I'm thinking....

Exactly what I'm thinking.

[CottonBear]

17. I wonder if they got them in Argentina, Uraguay or Paraguay?

Lots of folks of German, Spanish, Italian and even American ancestry live there. There are many blonde, blue-eyed South Americans.

[shanti]

38. right

but when you think of a "latin american" child, blond/blue does NOT come to mind.

[mike923]

56. Because we like to sterotype.

[kestrel91316]

117. I have been saying this since the night they were on TV.

[still_one]

18. is it a rumor or news?

if it is news, where is the NY Times link?

[Maddy McCall]

19. Seeing how the investigation is ongoing, there won't be a Times...

link until the Times publishes Justice's article.

Is that difficult for you to understand? If you have a gripe about me posting a Drudge item, then take it up with Skinner.

[still_one]

21. boy are you sensitve

first of all it seems like pure gossip
second, this an open forum, and I am allowed to express my views just as you are

lighten up

[Maddy McCall]

23. Sure, you're allowed to express your opinions.

But I'm not going to get into the Drudge war that you're trying to start.

Perhaps it is YOU who should lighten up.

[still_one]

24. I didn't even mention drudge

I don't have that problem if people want to see what the other side is thinking. I don't do it, but I think it is a necessary thing to know what we are up against

lets just say we had a difference of semantics

Best Regards

[Gormy Cuss]

25. So, what is the motivation of the insider who leaked this to Drudge?

Is the 'insider' deliberately trying to shortcircuit the inquiry because there IS something hinky about the adoptions, or is the 'insider' just someone with an axe to grind?

That the Times is looking into the adoption doesn't surprise me, but we would hear nothing if they conclude the process was done properly because that would not be news.

[KoKo]

33. Either Drudge wants the RW'ers to shut down the NYT's investigation

by leaking this (meaning there might be something shady going on with the adoption) or Drudge is trying to drum up sympathy for Roberts from the Right Wing saying the Lefty :rofl: NYT's will even go into Roberts private family matters to "hurt his children." Which means the NYT's wasn't really investigating it, but Drudge is the outlet to prop Roberts up.

He's either doing a pre-emptive strike or just a dumb Drudge sympathy thing for his lackeys. :shrug:

[Changenow]

68. Or both

If there is substance right wants to make it about the adorable children, not their parents conduct. Start the smear early so the real story gets lost in the fray.

It makes me think the NYT is on to something.

[Imagevision]

121. Drudge is a loser website -- they need new blood/talent!

[geek tragedy]

26. Unless there's something really nasty or illegal, I don't like this.

Of course, this is Sludge, so . . .

[Tempest]

31. This is SOP

The Repugs do it, Democrats do it, rightwing newspapers do it, liberal newspapers do it, anyone with a stake does it.

All public records are fair game.

[geek tragedy]

32. Doesn't mean I have to like it. And I strongly oppose Roberts. eom

[conservdem]

41. Shouldn't we rise above this? Isn't this part

of that politics of personal destruction that Dems, like B. Clinton, decry?

[anotherdrew]

49. why are they public records then?

This man will wield extreme power for the rest of his life and you want to not delve into his public records? WTF?

[conservdem]

52. I did not say do not check his public records. I asked two questions.

Can you answer either? Also how would you feel and what would be your thoughts if the rolls were reversed?

[anotherdrew]

57. I would EXPECT no less than verification of such records

Q1) Shouldn't we rise above this?

A1)No, "we" aren't doing anything, the NYT is, and no, I don't think they should avoid this either, clearly they have some reason to look and if it's only verifying the records are true and accurate, good for them.

Q2) Isn't this part of that politics of personal destruction that Dems, like B. Clinton, decry?
A2) "politics of personal destruction" is a republican code for "don't do to me what we did to you". In case you haven't noticed the rethuglicans have not started being nice anytime recently. This is WAR for the heart and soul and future of this nation and the world. Not a war we started, but one we MUST end. Do whatever it takes to discredit and destroy by tearing apart in any way any and all republican politicians... The gloves are off, no more mister nice guy, etc. etc. etc.

[Tempest]

64. Good response

Thanks for saving me the time and effort in setting him straight.

[conservdem]

109. I not so sure he succeeded. See post 107.

[conservdem]

107. Tempest states that this SOP for Dems so the

"we" to which I was referring was Dems, not the NYT. I have not reached a conclusion yet as to whether I think the NYT should be doing this. I am inclined to think it probably shouldn't.

As you can probably tell, I disagree with you about doing what ever it takes.

[Changenow]

75. How is that?

This isn't going to destroy Roberts's nomination unless he did something wrong. You seem to be suggesting that certain illegal behavior is too personal for investigation. There is no constitutional right to privacy, or won't be soon.

[Bluerthanblue]

106. especially

given his choice of career, and his acception of the nomination.
If he doesn't like being 'examined' with a microscope- he's in the wrong profession. Probably, the way things are going, in the wrong country as well.

Nothing to hide?, then in this case absolutely nothing to fear. His children are going to have to grow 'thick skins' given their fathers chosen career. That is american politics.-

at it's most hypocritical finest- (right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including privacy).

[kestrel91316]

118. Heck, he paraded them on TV, THAT makes them fair game AFAIAC.

[Bluerthanblue]

102. if he can't

'take the heat', he'd be an ass to walk into the kitchen.

Like it or not, no area of a persons life is 'sacrosanct' when they go into public service.
At least they haven't appointed a 'special prosecutor' to spend billions of dollars investigating it-

If he really cared about sheltering his kids, he's in the WRONG profession-

Sad? you bet your life- but true? and 'established behaviour'- fraid so.

[norml]

28. The Boys From Brazil

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077269/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1002993-boys_from_brazil/

[htuttle]

48. Colonia Dignidad, maybe?

Anyone ever hear *where* in South America the kids were from?

Was it Chile?

[anotherdrew]

50. Colonia Dignidad was the first suspicion I had as well

Either that or the argentina fascists had a habit of stealing children from the folks they 'disappeared' then raising them as their own baby fascists. Since Roberts in my book is quite possibly as dirty as they come, I think every possible aspect of his life should have as much bright light shown on it as possible.

[susu369]

65. Brazil, indeed

perhaps where the Confederados moved?

I really don't think little dancing Jack "delighted" bu$h.

[MisterP]

113. it was actually reported that the Man-Child got hissy at the dancing

I just heard "Risky Business" the whole time.
Guess * will hide the Tinkertoys from Jack in the National Playroom.

[WinkyDink]

85. HAHA!

Just what I was thinking!
They DO look rather "Aryan"!
But whatever, any serious dirt is good dirt, IMO.
And no, I ain't risin' above NOTHIN', because with Bushco that's a fool's game.

[AlCzervik]

30. 1st this is from Drudge so i'll take it with a grain of salt but

is looking into the adoption papers really part of a standard background check? If they are indeed looking what are they looking for, lies on the form or trying to find out if they bought these kids?

[anotherdrew]

51. likely someone tipped them off to raise suspicions, smoke may = fire

[Miss Chybil]

53. Sorry. I think this is Out of Bounds.

Someone tell me why these children's adoption records are any of our business and I might change my mind.

[Vinca]

58. I agree 100%.

Unless there was something underhanded, it's none of our business. Two kids were lucky enough to get a loving home.

[gkhouston]

61. well, the NYT won't know if there was anything underhanded

until they've actually looked into it. Although I suppose if they actually find something, Roberts will simply say he forget the kids were radioactive. :sarcasm:

[Miss Chybil]

67. So they should look into every adoption for potential underhandedness?

This is like saying the police can come into your house to see if you're committing any crimes.

[Changenow]

73. Yes, they should.

It is a lifetime appointment after all. Roberts isn't a victim he is privileged to serve.

Oh and with the Roberts appointment the police search will be more of a reality than you realize.

[Bluerthanblue]

110. too bad for Lisa 'Steinberg" that

no one cared enough to look AT her-
never mind into how she ended up dead.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/lisa_steinberg/1.html

[Changenow]

114. Joel Steinberg was nominated to the Supreme Court

and they missed the illegal adoption?

[gkhouston]

79. the NYT aren't the police, nor are they invading anyone's home.

They must be looking at public documents. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they're looking at a lot of documents about Roberts' life and Drudge decided to make a fuss over these to make it look like Roberts is being persecuted. Somehow, you don't get the same sort of PR value out of someone's college transcript.

[neuvocat]

101. Maybe they were supposed to go to

another family.

[thebigidea]

60. who said anything about it being our business? Its the Times doing it.

since when do they give a shit what we think anyway?

[Miss Chybil]

63. I was working on the assumption the Times is pursuing this based on

"the public's right to know." I don't think we have rights to this type of information. I wasn't thinking "we" as in us at DU were doing it. Just that they (the Times) were doing it for what they percieve to be public benefit.

[Changenow]

71. If the adoption reveals Roberts did something wrong

would the public then have a right to know?

[Miss Chybil]

88. Why would someone ASSUME there is something wrong with an

adoption? It goes back to my analogy of the police checking your house to see if you're committing any crimes. Now, were they told, "Hey, I think the Roberts bought those babies..." then somebody would have a duty to check it out. Barring any evidence of wrongdoing one does not go on a fishing expedition, especially, at the expense of children. If this were happening to say, Wes Clark, people would be having a hissy-fit. I would be having a hissy-fit. It's not right.

Now... I realize this is Drudge and he could be playing this angle to make it seem the "liberals" are persecuting poor Roberts. If that's the case, the whole argument is mute. I'm arguing my point, however, on the information given here. The kids are off limits in my book.

[gkhouston]

92. the extent of the information given here is that the status of

adoptions is being checked and that the NYT says it's part of a standard background check. It doesn't say that the NYT has gotten a hot tip nor that they're fishing for dirt. It's just part of a background check.

[Changenow]

115. Who assumed anything?

According to they are checking.

[Changenow]

69. The investigation is to reveal whether the adoption was legal

If it was legal it isn't anyone's business. On the other hand, if there were ethical violations then it most certainly is raises a question about Robert's qualifications.

Nominees have been booted for smoking dope, surly the illegal adoption of children from a foreign country is just as disqualifying.

[startingnow]

81. I Have to Agree Here

[sandnsea]

87. Bought children

It does happen. I'm glad they're investigating, that's what reporters are supposed to do. Too bad Drudge is turning it into a story when the Times wouldn't have unless they found something untoward.

[Miss Chybil]

89. No story unless they found something ontoward? So, you're saying

maybe they should just make something up? Give me a break.

[sandnsea]

90. What???

No. I said the Times wouldn't have reported anything at all unless they found something ontoward. I don't know how you transformed that into make something up.

[Miss Chybil]

94. Why would they report something that was nothing?

Nothing ontoward = no story. Seems you just want a story. That's how I'm reading it, anyway.

[sandnsea]

95. They wouldn't

That's what I said. Drudge is reporting it before there's a story, just to smear the Times. They're right to look into the adoption, there are blackmarket adoption rings after all. But the Times wouldn't report anything unless they found something untoward.

[Miss Chybil]

96. Now I gotcha.

I don't agree with you about the adoption thing, but I understand what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying.

[rocktivity]

97. I, too, smell a pre-emptive strike against the Times.

If double-checking the adoption records is journalism SOP (and not unreasonable as far as I'm concerned), why does Drudge consider this a story? To make the Times look like they're trying to smear Roberts, or to pre-emptively counteract anything bad they might find?

:shrug:
rocknation

[sleipnir]

103. Well, you throw shit up against a wall and see what sticks.

That's what they are doing and we should support them. Who knows what will come out of this? And right now, the stakes we are dealing with are far higher than the rights of his two kids. I could give two fucks if they get traumatized for the rest of their lives or some really awful things come out of this. If it means keeping Roberts off the Bench, count me in.

I'm totally in favor of this and any other invasion investigation. He needs to be throughly vetted, public and private.

[Pachamama]

119. Background checks on all family & candidate & public records are always

conducted....standard part of process....This wasn't a case of them being singled out. Its possible Drudge Sludge is trying to a) make an issue that doesn't exist or b) something has popped up and its going to come to light soon...

[VegasWolf]

98. BREAKING: The NY Times has just been found to be cooperating with

bin Laden and is to be immediately shut down.

[creeksneakers2]

100. No sense arguing over anything on Drudge

Since it probably isn't true anyway. Even if its true that the New York Times checked adoption records, why assume they are going to write a negative story? The Times did a piece on Mrs. Roberts that was very favorable to her.

Mr. and Mrs. Roberts didn't get married until they were 41 or so. I think Mrs. Roberts' age probably had something to do with their decision to adopt. I don't know that for a fact though.

The right wing has $100 million for the Roberts nomination to smear lefties with. If nobody does anything uncivil, the righties will have to make something up. That's probably what is going on here.

[VegasWolf]

105. You know, coupled with his pro bono legal work and adopting

children, you don't think he's actually ... ?

[AlCzervik]

120. Drudge has removed it so once again Drudge is stirring things

up to try and paint the media as liberal.