Finding a skeleton on Roberts

[the_spectator]

Sure he's an ostensibly non-crazy mild-mannered conservative, smart, and a nice guy too. So likely the only thing that can derail this nomination would be a skeleton or two. Don't forget, Thomas's nomination hearings, including his own appearance, were relatively calm and unremarkable and he seemed to be sailing home until Anita Hill and various issues related to coke cans and video rental showed up.

CAN a skeleton on Roberts actually come from those now-famous tow-headed kids? I'm asking because I think it at least calls for some investigation.

It is a known fact that both of those blonde white children are adopted. It was stated on DU last night - but I CANNOT find any confirmation through some cursory googling - that the children were adopted from "Latin America."

How did he get those kids?

So today the New York Times does one of its huge-ass biographical articles that's spread across 14 columns on 3 pages where they seem to talk to just about everyone Roberts ever knew, old college roommates, what have you.

There are only two sentences on the children in the article, the source being Shannen Coffin, a Republican friend and former colleague. This is all we get:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21nominee.html?pagewanted=6

Mr. Coffin said that after the Robertses married nine years ago when they were both in their 40's, they tried to have children. After several failed adoption efforts, he said, they "got lucky" with two children, Josephine and John, now 5 and 4.

"Got lucky"?

Yeah this is all probably nothing, but there's not much on this guy that can really threaten his ascension to the Court. I'm not saying this is some tin-foil hatter "Boys from Brazil" Neo-Con Nazi thing. I'm suggesting that it's highly possible that there was some kind of abuse of power and privilege, some kind of petty corruption or venality, something sleazy if not even illegal about the way the Robertses acquired their children.

I'd love to hear from others what you can find out about the circumstances of the Roberts adoptions.

[djg21]

1. Sounds like a stretch. . .

and even a low blow to me.

I do not think that it would be really productive to pick on a couple that married late in life because they wanted to have children and had to adopt.

And just why is it that you think it is "highly possible that there was some kind of abuse of power and privilege, some kind of petty corruption or venality . . . . I'm not asking why you would like this to be the case, but rather, why you believe it "highly possible?"

Unless there is a good-faith basis to believe that there was "something sleazy if not even illegal about the way the Robertses acquired their children" (apart from their blond hair -- this just sounds absurd) an inquiry into such matters certainly sounds like an undue and unwarranted intrusion into the Roberts' privacy, and in any event, would be in bad form.

[the_spectator]

3. Well, you're probably right -

I was just intrigued with last night's DU mention that the kids were gotten out of Latin America. It has to be even harder to adopt little white kids there than it is here!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stephanie]

6. You're not missing anything

You called it correctly.

[the_spectator]

10. I don't disupte that there's nothing solid on this-

I was just hoping maybe others had found some more info about the circumstances of the adoptions. Not trying to start anything.

[Stephanie]

11. I know exactly what you're trying to start

And you won't see anyone rising to the bait here at DU. Start counting.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. I think if nothing else we have discovered the reason why Mrs. Roberts

is anti-abortion. I have noticed that women who can't have kids tend to lean that way.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

8. Leave the kids and the tinfoil out of it

[GiovanniC]

9. Is This Really the Best We've Got?

If you can find something better to hold against Roberts, I suggest you stop wasting time with this nonsense and start beating on THAT drum, because time is at a premium. And if the fact that he has adopted kids (whether from Bolivia or Botswana or Boston) is truly the worst thing you can say about John Roberts, then I suggest you call your senators and demand that he be confirmed, because if he has no bigger flaws than that then we're looking at the most qualified Supreme Court Justice EVER.

[djg21]

12. If there was anything better, we'd already know about it.

It would have come out during his last confirmation hearing in May 2003. He was unanimously confirmed!

This is all about credibility. We Dems gain nothing if our party attacks this guy without any legitimate basis, and there does not seem to be any legitimate basis.

That being said, I would personally like to learn more about his wife's political/anti-abortion activities during the confirmation process. I'm concerned that Roberts could potential face a conflict of interest if he is forced to decide a case involving reproductive rights. I'd like to know of that potential conflict now, before such a case arises!