NYT and Roberts

[LuckyTheDog]

If you were a reporter, and you heard from a credible source that a Supreme Court nominee might have broken the law, wouldn't you check up on that? Wouldn't you actually be obligated to do so? It seems here that the NYT followed a lead, found nothing and then dropped the matter. What is wrong with that? Are Bush nominees now to be considered above the law? Is scrutiny of them somehow unpatriotic or immoral?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jrn.htm

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. There is much flim-flammery involved in adoptions.....

esp. in international adoptions.

I have no idea whether Robert's kids were adopted internationally or not. But it is absolutely essential that Roberts make public whatever CAN legally be made public... esp. if a credible source has raised a question.

He's been nominated to serve on the *Supreme Court*.

[Massacure]

2. What is so special about adoptions?

I think the NYT is wasting time with it.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Adoptions are heavily regulated....

not just by the feds (INS) but by state laws. (And if another country is involved, by the laws of that country.)

The temptation is to short-cut the bureaucracy as much as possible. This can involve bending and/or breaking the laws.

But adoption law exists for a reason.

[UTUSN]

4. Welcome, LckyTheDog n/t