It's official: Roberts' adoptions are questionable

[Modem Butterfly]

It turns out the Roberts' children were actually born in Ireland. According to the US State Department:

Each year only a few Irish children are placed for adoption. Foreign adoptions are exceptionally rare, since adoptive parents must be resident in Ireland for at least one year.

http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/country/country_402.html

We need to examine this further. This is not about politics, and it's not about the children. This is a question of ethics. If Roberts used political clout to circumvent Irish law, that speaks very, very poorly for his ethics. I do not want someone appointed to a lifetime position on the highest court of the land who is willing to ignore the law for what he deems the greater good.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Screw that. It's about politics.

Let's fry the fucker any way we can! :evilgrin:

Ahem. Ethically, of course.

[rodeodance]

2. whow.

[havocmom]

3. Great catch, Modem Butterfly!

Fantastic!

[livetohike]

4. I agree, but we all know that the rules don't apply to people

in Bush's cabal :eyes: .

[Modem Butterfly]

8. We need to hold them accountable

If not now, then when?

Adoption laws are put into place first and foremost to protect adoptees. The laws aren't perfect and are often misguided, but to ignore them completely is inexcusable for anyone, let alone a judge, let alone someone who aspires to a lifetime appointment on the US Supreme Court.

[mom cat]

235. Nice catch in your butterfly net!

[anitar1]

279. So, should the children be taken away from them?

That seems to be the message.

[Radio_Lady]

311. anitar1, I don't think that's the point at all.

I just want to know if he followed the rules for adopting those children. Or did he use his position and money to circumvent the rules or laws?

I don't know enough about it either way, do you?

[AuntiBush]

277. Think it's time we stop calling it "Bush's World!"

It's our land... America. Home of the free, the brave, home of "we the people!" This is our country, right. Agree thou, sadly livetohike.

[KoKo]

5. Is there a link to the original article about the adoptions being from

Ireland? I must have missed it. This sounds like explosive info...

[Modem Butterfly]

10. Here you go

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1086120,00.html

[MrBenchley]

13. The adoptions actually took place in Latin America

even though the kids were born in Ireland...

And that IS weird. In EVERY way.

[Modem Butterfly]

15. Jesus, that's strange

Very, very strange.

[MrBenchley]

18. Sure is...

They're also adopted from two different families, because they're less than nine months apart...

So how do Irish toddlers end up in Bolivia, anyway?

[Cassandra]

23. Where's the original info about the Latin American adoptions

We've been batting this around in GD all morning and I still haven't seen an original citation about the adoption location except Roberts' bio and wingnut sites. Any info about how the adoption of Irish children went through Latin America? Or is that what we're waiting for the NYTimes to tell us?

[City Lights]

33. Found this at Wikipedia:

Roberts lives in Bethesda, Maryland. He married Jane Marie Sullivan in 1996. The Robertses have two children, Josephine ("Josie"), 5 years old, and Jack, 4 years old, both of whom were adopted from Latin America in 2000. Jack's dancing during Bush's White House introduction of his father brought the four-year-old international media attention.

[Cassandra]

37. Yea, we got that on the other thread but...

where did Wikipedia get it? Someone put it in there. Was it placed there by someone who wanted to put in disinfo? How would we know?

[City Lights]

137. They list their sources, but I haven't gone through them

to see if they list a source on the kids' adoption. :shrug:

I also found this AP article via philly.com:

He and his lawyer-wife, Jane, have two adopted children from Latin America.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/12173106.htm

I can't access the article from the link above without registering, but it's accessible (along with others) by using the link included in this Google News search:

http://news.google.com/news?q=john+roberts+%22latin+america%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&c2coff=1&client=safari&rls=en-us&tab=wn&ie=ISO-8859-1&sa=N&start=20

I thought there were numerous references to his kids being adopted from Latin America right after chimpy's announcement, but they sure are hard to find now. And the Time piece is the only one I've seen claiming they were born in Ireland.

[ClayZ]

85. The child was jumping and dancing ....

trying to tell us something...

Did you see her jerk him off the stage. I have yelled a mom and dads in grocery stores for doing that. It can dislocate thier wrists or sholders!


I hate that.

[City Lights]

139. I only saw still shots.

I can't stand to hear or see **, so I didn't watch it.

[ClayZ]

144. I am about to that point!

Our friend has a bumpersiker that says "Shoot your TV". I have thrown my slippers at mine so many times in the last 5 years.

Poor TV is about to have battered appliance syndrome!

heh heh....

Boltons wife had that boy by the hand so tight I KNEW IT HURT HIM just by watching.

Washington state has a rock painting, painted by the Wishram Tribe called Tsagagalala, "SHE WHO WATCHES" painted in the days when women were cheif, so she could watch all the tibes forever. Ever since I climbed up to see it, I have "seen" thing, I might have not noticed before!



http://www.spokaneoutdoors.com/horseth.htm

[beam me up scottie]

291. That rock is really cool.

I'm saving that, what an awesome symbol.

And good for you, we should be watching.

Just look at what happens when people turn their heads and say
"It's really none of my business"

[anitar1]

281. Again, should the children be taken away from them? This

seems to be the mood. They do not behave the right way and they are not dressed the right way. The lttle girl maybe should be in a mid-driff exposing t-shirt and the boy in some big pants? Sorry, but I am sick og these attacks on children.

[ClayZ]

287. Someone will probably tell her in a grocery store...

Not to hold his little hand in a way that hurts him. I usually say,"how would you like it if someone 3 times your size treated you that way?

They swear at me an go on. At least they know someone is watching.

I am just always a Grandma.


:yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks:

[Cassandra]

315. NO ONE IS ATTACKING THE CHILDREN!

Or saying that they were dressed inappropriately for the occasion. Their outfits may be a little precious to some but that's just a matter of taste. No one says that the children should be removed, either. Roberts now has several mis-statements about his history on the record and the NYTimes would like to know if the details of the adoptions are also mis-stated. Personally, I would like to know if a potential SC justice finds lying as easy as breathing.

[fob]

86. When was that entry written? If Jack is 4, then he was born in 2001

so he was adopted in utero?

This whole scenario gives me a "Boys from Brazil" creepy vibe.

[Chipper Chat]

94. Yikes!

"Herr Lieeeee-ber-mannnn"
"Cut"

[City Lights]

96. Sometime between today and August 5th.

Here's the entry as it appeared on August 5th when I posted it in another thread:

No Surrender (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-05-05 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
33. Wikipedia lists his kids' ages as 5 and 2.

Edited on Fri Aug-05-05 05:54 PM by No Surrender

The Robertses have two children, Josephine ("Josie"), 5 years old, and Jack, 2, years old, both of whom were adopted from Latin America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts

Anybody have pictures of the kids? I remember seeing them after the chimp made his announcement, but don't have them handy.

On edit - I found a picture but can't post it. Wikipedia has to be wrong. Those kids look like they could be twins. No way are they are 3 years apart.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1988406#1988780

[LisaM]

248. Four and a half MONTHS apart

I think it said.

[City Lights]

102. If Jack was born in 2000 and he's 4, I assume he'll be turning 5

later this year. :shrug:

[FourStarDemocrat]

264. Anyone catch this?

From the link in the OP:

AVAILABILITY OF CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION: Recent U.S. immigrant visa statistics show that in the last five years there were no immigrant visas given for adopted children/orphans.

[Fleshdancer]

117. Depends on the month he was born in

If he's a late summer, fall or winter baby, he would still be 4 but born in 2000.

[MrBenchley]

39. Good questions...

It sure seems like Roberts and his clan have gone out of their way to hide the details....

So far, I've yet to see an account that even tells us WHICH Latin American country they were adopted through.

(Apropos of nothing, on Ronald Reagan's one and only trip to Latin America, he could not distinguish between Bolivia and Brazil...and when he came back, remarked aloud in a press conference, "You'd be surprised...they're all separate countries down there.")

[Modem Butterfly]

41. I noticed that too. There's 33 countries in Latin America

Maybe this is just to hide the fact that they're Irish?

[gkhouston]

43. could be. And all this time I thought it was something

less dastardly, like a young cousin in the extended family who got knocked up and the "Latin America" BS was a face-saving lie.

[Cassandra]

45. Still could be that.

I just wait in the probably vain hope that we'll get some honesty out of this crowd.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Born in Ireland or Irish?

Do you know which it is?

[MrBenchley]

146. Nope...

As you know, it's an outrage against public decency to even ask questions about how this lying piece of shit and his Nazi wife got their toddlers...(snicker)..

Just aS it's beyond the pale for NARAL to run an ad pointing out he jumped in TO DEFEND THE TERRORIST in a clinic bombing case...

Us hysterical, hate-filled liberals (crocodile tear here)....

[FreedomAngel82]

68. Yes

Why were they in Latin America? Did they live there or just there for the adoption? If so is that legal?

[MrBenchley]

147. Good thing our watchdog press is on the case...

(sigh)

[Syncronaut Seven]

145. Sounds like an attempt to circumvent Irish law.

In addition to the specific laws broken, Is he not guilty of conspiracy? and can he be prosecuted? Penalties for conspiracy can be pretty tough and include disbarment.

Not that disbarment would make a difference, He is family after all.

[MrBenchley]

148. All good questions....

which deserved to be asked aloud.

[barbaraann]

6. Maybe that's why Mrs. Roberts looked unhappy during the announcement.

I thought it was strange that she didn't look proud and happy and also that she didn't seem to relate to the children. She might have been frightened out of her wits.

[quaoar]

7. I say leave this one alone

And leave his kids out of it.

Adoption policies and laws are an unbelievable snakepit. I've been through it and it isn't pretty -- not in this country or any other.

[Modem Butterfly]

9. Bullshit

If Ireland cut an under-the-table deal for someone, they need to know about it and stop it. Now. And we do not need someone in a lifetime position on the highest court of our country who does not think that the law should apply to him.

[havocmom]

38. There ya go. Not about the kids, but about respect & reverence for law.

This seems hard evidence that Roberts doesn't have that particular gene.

Anyone who goes to such lengths to circumvent the law should not be on the Supreme Court.

If they use the 'did it for the children' defense, we need to be ready with hard numbers of how many American kids need adoption! When they get tense about that, inquire as to whether it is an issue of wanting to assure the Roberts got white babies. If that is the case, has nothing to do with 'the children' and everything to do with an elitist and possibly racist vanity on the part of the adoptive parents.

Hard to imagine that Judge and Mrs. Roberts would not score high enough on any evaluation of any US agency to adopt American kids who need parents! Either they are elitist, racist law breakers or they are questionable as prospective parents. Which is it? We should know before such a man is seated on the Supreme Court!

[Prism]

56. Oh neat, we're Republicans now. Super.

In the Clinton Age: "It's not about sex, it's about rule of law."

In the Bush Age: "Not about the kids, but about respect & reverence for law."

How disappointing.

I guess we can pry into anything in the name of politics.

Why again would anyone run for office in this country?

As an adoptee who's been involved with adoption issues and support, I think this is really, really low. When politics trump everything, even common decency, it's time to take a step back and wonder if you've become what you profess to hate.

[havocmom]

59. Well, some of us maybe...

but not most here

[Modem Butterfly]

66. The private and personal dealing of Supreme Court nominees...

...are always up for examination. It's why we have a confirmation process, to uncover any ethical lapses and irregularities. To turn a blind eye to this is shameful.

As an adoptee, I would think you would understand the need for oversight and transparency in the adoption process.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Bluerthanblue]

90. Prism, it really ISN"T

about the 'kids'- themselves, but about the 'character' of the man who would be 'judge' over the land.

As an attorney, he has access, and knowledge to many 'strings' and 'below board' tactics that COULD put his 'character' and 'morality' and 'integrety' in a 'positive' light, while doing something wrong.

IF that is the case, don't 'we'- as potential petitioners of him have the right to know the truth? If he's done nothing wrong, then there is nothing to follow, nothing to fear-

i said this on another thread several days ago, but if Joel Steinberg not been a "lawyer"- Lisa, that sweet, sad child and her brother, might never have had to have gone through what they did-

Am i saying Roberts is going to abuse his kids? absolutely not- but he has knowledge and an 'in' that makes his adoption a little more subject to 'scrutiny' than the 'average' joe.

And i'm an adoptive mom, who has very strong feelings about the rights of children and birth, and adoptive families-

no foul, no issue-

and yes, sadly, we MUST pry into anything in the name of politics- had we insisted upon it with * i doubt many would have let him slither into the place he has- but he refused to answer, and people let that stand- to this worlds regret.

[peacebaby3]

143. I completely disagree. We are adopting now and having to go through all of

the process and headaches. Why should the Roberts because of power and money be able to get away without having to go through all of the processes my husband and I have to go through?

As you should know dealing with adoption issues, as adoptive parents, you lose all of your privacy. Other than what time I go to the restroom each day, they have documented in my paperwork. So the argument about their privacy is silly.

They should definitely be investigated. It is the only right thing to do.

[Bluerthanblue]

238. hang in there

it's worth every bit of effort- Are you adopting domestically? usually the homestudy is alot harder for those of us that go through that route-
Our home was approved for foster care- now THAT is a nightmare- even testing the temperature that comes out of the tap-
But far less questioning on the personal strenghts and weaknesses of parentability- it DID help that we had a biological child, who was and is a 'super' kid.-/man now.

Sadly, money often DOES make the process smoother- (not an option here, we had to pay our home-study in installments) but over-all a very worthwhile experience. The questions, and scenerio's help to really make you think, and re-evaluate your perspectives.

i wish you much success- my life would be far diminished without my adopted child- our whole family would be 'the lesser' without him.

[Justice]

194. Prism, I say, let the republicans go first - let them be first

to stop prying into anything in the name of politics.

The ONLY time I hear people urging civility is when Republicans are trying to stop Democrats from expressing their opinion.

[Henny Penny]

196. If we are selling our kids to rich foreigners...

I sure as hell want to know about it!

And if a supreme court nominee thinks the law doesn't apply to him, I think you sure as hell need to know about that!

[Modem Butterfly]

212. A-freaking-men!

What Henny Penny said!

[bobbieinok]

242. get the Irish govt to investigate?????

[Maat]

205. I agree with you, Prism.

I made that argument in another thread.

I am an adoptive mom.

I was a social worker for CPS for 7 years.

Currently, I work for a law firm, and am in Dependency Court (social worker/kid court) as a law clerk for that firm.

But I guess, despite having experienced these various roles, I don't know squat.

I refuse to be part of any DU effort to discuss or investigate the Roberts adoption. I think that the adoption is off limits.

And don't let anyone tell you what you should feel - as an adoptee or otherwise.

[quaoar]

219. God bless you, Maat

:)

[Maat]

267. You too!

[LSU_Subversive]

236. no. this is about a potential baby market.

buying babies on the market is a way to make sure that a market continues to exist.

your visceral reaction to the issue is understandable, though, given that you're an adoptee.

[momisold]

79. Are you saying

that because I wanted a Caucasian child that I am a racist? I am an elitist? That because I could not bear children that I have no right to have the kind of child I want?

Try having several miscarriages, treatments and failures, then come tell me that I have no right to want the kind of child I want.

[Modem Butterfly]

83. To want the kind of child I want

Gosh, I'm sure glad my parents didn't tell the adoption agency what "kind" of child they wanted to adopt.

[momisold]

107. Again,

Are you saying I had no right to say I wanted a Caucasian child? For whatever reasons, which I don't have to explain to anyone, we decided, for our family, that we wanted a child who looked somewhat like us. We didn't specify gender, hair color, eye color, weight, height. Our specifics were Caucasian and preferably, from a birthmother who had not smoked or drank during the pregnancy. Are you saying we don't have that right?

[Modem Butterfly]

109. All I have to say is "Yikes!"

Our specifics were Caucasian and preferably, from a birthmother who had not smoked or drank during the pregnancy.

My parents just asked for a child...

[momisold]

126. You are not answering my question.

Hooray for your parents who were so open-minded and did what was best for their family. Am I not allowed to do the same for my family?

[Modem Butterfly]

131. Apparently, yes

What you did was perfectly legal, apparently.

With Roberts, it is not so apparent. And with a potential Supreme Court Justice, that's a big problem.

[momisold]

138. I'm not talking legal or illegal.

There is discussion on this board saying the Roberts could be racists and/or elitists for adopting the children they did. That is what I am addressing. Not whether they did it legally or illegally.

[Modem Butterfly]

140. Well, I am

The racism issue really is separate, and, as your case illustrates, not a legal issue with respect to adoptions.

[quaoar]

220. Is there any evidence that Roberts did something illegal?

I've seen a lot of accusations on this thread, but no evidence.

If he knowlingly violated the law, then fine, crucify him. But to infer that he must have done something shady because adoptions from Ireland are rare is absurd.

[Modem Butterfly]

222. That's the point.

Roberts' adoption records should be open to examination, the same way his academic, career and financial records are.

[quaoar]

224. That ought to be the point

But this has turned into "Let's Hang Roberts Over His Adoption."

[Silverhair]

272. NO. The adoption records are sealed to protect the families & the kids.

Pushing to get the adoption records open for partisan politics makes us really look bad.

[Modem Butterfly]

313. My adoption records were examined when my dad was getting...

...a security clearance. They wanted to be sure nothing funny had happened.

There is a big difference between examining the adoption records for irregularities and opening the records.

[LSU_Subversive]

243. well, we don't know. that's why we're discussing the implications

of the issue in the "general discussion" thread.

[quaoar]

246. That's my point

We don't know.

No sense in gathering a posse until we determine the bank has been robbed.

LSU eh? I taught journalism there long ago. Geaux Tigers!

[LSU_Subversive]

261. but if the people concerned won't provide us with the info

to determine whether the bank has been robbed, then maybe we need a "posse" or, in this case, a group of interested citizens to communicate to the media and the administration that answers are needed.

[beam me up scottie]

141. Do babies come with papers?

You know, like purebred dogs do?
Because I sure would hate to get one with a little bit of another breed mixed in. ;-)

[Modem Butterfly]

142. How else can you potty train them?

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

160. It's funny,

I've never felt the need to buy an animal.

There are so many unwanted fur babies out there to choose from, all awaiting a horrible fate if no one adapts them.

Someone will always be around to buy the purebreds, I always figured the "unwanted" needed me more.

[Extend a Hand]

285. no, adoptees aren't treated with that much respect

we get fake papers and very spotty medical information.

[Henny Penny]

198. Hey, your parents done good!

:-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

199. So you could pretend that the child wasn't adopted?

:shrug:

[momisold]

316. We don't pretend.

He's known since he was about 3 that he is adopted. We regularly talk about it, when he brings it up.

[PassingFair]

213. OK, I'll say it.

NO, you don't have a RIGHT to ANYONE else's child.
You scare me.

[havocmom]

91. No, but I am saying if you break laws to get a particular racial package

you are not so interested in having children as in having a particular race of child. That would indicate putting race above the bit of "doing it for the children" which is a cover just like wrapping one's self in the flag while pissing on what it stands for.

And you might consider that I may have had several miscarriages and failures before you tell me what rights I have to speak. If you wanna attack my and my speech, you best be getting some facts first.
Attack what I say all you want, but DO NOT tell me what I can say.

[Cats Against Frist]

230. I don't think you're necessarily "racist," per se,

but, unless the child was older and/or disabled, then you're no hero to humanity. If you paid big money for a white infant, I think it definitely says something about you. I'm not saying it's necessarily, bad, but it does say something.

[momisold]

317. We didn't pay big money.

We paid the agency to take care of the birthmother, nothing else. And I have never claimed to be a hero to humanity. We wanted to parent a child, it wasn't possible, we adopted a child whose birthmother chose to not parent him. Abortion was not an option for her, taking care of the baby was not an option for her, and the grandmother didn't want to raise him. The birthfather had already walked away from one child. Would you rather she left him in a dumpster?

edit for spelling, grammar

[REP]

305. So Another Woman Has To Be The Vending Machine for YOUR Desires?

Children are commodities, and because you really REALLY want one, you should be given one, and in the color you want? To match your drapes?

Adoption is not about fulfilling YOUR wants. It's about fulfilling the needs of a child who has lost his/her family. Your inability to reproduce is sad, but a child without a family is a tragedy. Don't confuse the two.

[rinsd]

78. Do we have corroboration on the Ireland angle?

Everyone seems to be running off in their hypothetical directions from what one guy said who stated an age difference that had not been previously reported. Now further down the thread I brought this up and someone else pointed out that MSM has age variances all over the place.

This is the sole source for the Ireland angle.

What I am curious about is what the original source for the whole South America/Latin America location for adoption. Was this discussed on TV or something?

[quaoar]

214. You've obviously never adopted a child

[Modem Butterfly]

223. I AM an adopted child

My adoption records were subject to review when my father sought a job requiring a security clearance. And he wasn't seeking a lifetime apointment either. Why should Roberts' records by exempt where my father's were not.

[quaoar]

225. Being an adoptee

Is not the same as being an adoptive parent.

[Modem Butterfly]

227. Being an adoptive parent shouldn't get you any pass...

...when you're seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country.

[quaoar]

231. No, but being an adoptive parent myself

I am willing to give Roberts a pass if he did not cross every T and dot every I.

People who adopt children, especially those who take in special needs children, should be praised. Yet there is a segment of society that seems to want to vilify such people as selfish if they only want to adopt a white child. (I know you didn't say that -- I'm just on my soap box at the moment. LOL).

Russia is the top choice of people seeking foreign adoptions because Russian children are white. I don't begrudge those parents their preferences. They are giving a child a better home and future than he/she would otherwise have. My own mother-in-law wanted to know why we couldn't adopt from Sweden instead of the Third World. Not everyone is able to ignore family prejudices.

[Modem Butterfly]

241. Didn't cross every T and dot every I?

I am willing to give Roberts a pass if he did not cross every T and dot every I.

If Roberts behaved les than ethically in his adoption, or in any other matter, it should be an automatic disqualfication from the Supreme Court. Frankly, I do not think someone who feels the law doesn't apply to him should be given a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. I think it's an insult to every adoptive parent who actually DID follow the law and I think it sets a very dangerous precedent for children who are available for adoption.

You know, this lackadaisical, "he should be praised" attiude really pisses me off. WE ARE NOT FUCKING COMMODITIES TO BE TRADED ON THE BLACK MARKET. We are NOT goods that should go to the highest, best-connected bidder. If Roberts adopted his children legally then there is no problem but if he adopted his children with the aid of bribes or influence pedaling THAT is a serious problem. The next person who comes along and doesn't cross his T's or dot his I's may be doing so in order to HURT the child that is given to him.

[quaoar]

251. Oh wake up, for Christ's sake.

and smell the coffee. Sometimes you have to circumvent the usual procedures. I asked my congressman and senator (both RW Republicans) to write letters to the foreign government on behalf of our adoption. It pained me to ask RWingers for a favor but I did what I had to do to move the bureaucracy. If that violates anyone's moral code, tough shit.

Nobody said you were a commodity. Your parents wanted a child and they were blessed when you came into their lives. Hopefully their adoption experience was smooth and efficient. But I'd be willing to bet that they loved you so much that they wouldn't have cared if all the Ts were crossed.

[Modem Butterfly]

254. Sometimes you have to BREAK THE LAW to adopt a child?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Nobody said you were a commodity.

People who "circumvent the usual procedure" by the judicious application of money/influence and/or goods and services are absolutely turning children into commodities. If Roberts was one of those people, he should be disqualified from being a Supreme Court justice.

But I'd be willing to bet that they loved you so much that they wouldn't have cared if all the Ts were crossed.

My parents loved me enough to actually obey the law.

[quaoar]

259. No I am not fucking kidding you.

Asking a congressman to write a letter is hardly trampling on the Constitution, especially considering I have never given him a dime.

You seem to have some kind of unresolved issue about adoption. That isn't a criticism, BTW, just an observation. Whatever it is I sincerely hope you come to terms with it. I have no idea what it is like to be an adopted child so I am not one to criticize. I do wonder sometimes what my son will go through not knowing who his birth parents are (If I knew, I would tell him).

My parents loved me enough to actually obey the law.

Wonderful. I'm glad. And perhaps you would grant that there are some children who were blessed to grow up in a loving home instead of an orphanage because someone moved the bureaucracy along. But if a snag had developed and your parents asked a community leader to intercede on their behalf, would you be outraged?

[Bluerthanblue]

270. you as a

'little guy'- didn't do anything wrong in seeking aid from your Congresman- unless your congressman did something 'shady' to 'make' things happen that weren't 'legal'- or you had a 'good ole boy' relationsip with your congressman, and you capitolized on it- it doesn't sound like that to me-

i don't understand why you feel so defensive about the Roberts? if HE as a monied, privlidged professional used manipulation to 'get' the children he and his wife desired, that is clearly wrong- he's no 'average joe' asking his elected offical to see if they can 'help'- (not co-erce) in an adoption that was stalled for no 'legitimate' reason.

and NO, i don't agree with you that Butterfly should feel any more blessed to grow up in a loving home, than the 'birth children' who grow up in loving homes should- ALL children deserve that- those that don't recieve it, are cheated- not because they 'deserved' anything less that perfect- but because this god-damn world is not fair- and people who have the power to change things, often do- when it suits their purpose, while the average person is at their mercy-

i could have been born in Sudan, or Iraq, or India, or Memphis- but i wasn't- and it's not because i 'deserved' anything more.

Do you feel guilty about asking your representitives for help? if so, why? you did nothing wrong- did they?

[bettyellen]

271. i have an unresolved issue with people breaking the law...

and people wanting to ignore it just because they have something in common with this person.
i'm sorry, i don't make excuses for supreme court nominees based on my own personal shit, this is about ethics and abuse of power. there are a few questions that need to be answered.

edit: sp

[crispini]

282. 'Scuse me, may I chime in?

There is a big difference between asking a community leader to intercede on the behalf of your adoption and start moving things along and what the Roberts may have done. Two children from Ireland who were adopted through Central America -- that's the scenario I'm getting here -- doesn't that smell a bit funny to you? I mean, this is not sounding like a deal where your friend's friend moves your application to the top of the pile -- this is sounding like some sneaky international attempt to circumvent adoption laws in some weird way.

Setting out to obtain a child through a possibly illegal method is waaaay different than using some political influence to make a LEGAL adoption go a little smoother.

[SoCalDem]

288. I doubt seriously that "special order" children grow up in orphanages

..Open adoptions are more prevalent these days,and I say Bravo!

Having a child to love and raise is a fantastic thing to do, adported or otherwise, and the secrets are corrosive..

Roberts should have presented the adoption dossier to the senate committee that will be "approving" him, so that NO ONE would dare to question the methods of the PROCESS..

we deserve no less.

[Modem Butterfly]

306. But we're not talking about a letter of reference here, are we

If all Roberts did was get a letter of reference, that's a very different issue than getting a foreign government to violate its own laws regarding residency and oversight, and in so doing, violate US immigration law (illegal adoptions by definition violate immigration law).

You seem to have some kind of unresolved issue about adoption.

I have a huge isue with illegal adoptions. I would hope everyone does. I find it extremely disturbing that you, apparently, do not.

[Bluerthanblue]

268. Modem Flutterby

as a mom who was gifted with the chance to share my home and heart with a child not of my womb, but of my spirit- i want you to know, you are NOT a 'commodity'-

Nor are my beloved sons- i have a biological son who i adore, and have to admit i feared my love for my adopted son would be 'different'- not 'less' than, but different- it is, oddly enough, my younger and i are so much 'alike' in personality it's scary- and beautiful, because he is showing me how to love and accept myself, in ways i never would have understood, through his gentle, sensitive, and hillarious personality- ^i^ am the 'lucky' one- to have had this incredible experience, and to watch two wonderful children unfold, and grow into very gifted, different, and special people.

it pisses me off when people say 'oh, that is so good of you'- as if the joy-heartbreak and fullness of parenting were some sacrifical effort- i understand the 'intent' behind most comments like that- but listening to it, especially when said in the presence of my sons, brings out the mother bear in me-

i'm sorry folks can't see that we are all just children, and we ALL deserve to be loved, nurtured, and prepared as well as possible to make our way in this world- it IS a 'crap-shoot'. No one 'deserves' to be born into any circumstance.

i hope you have known much love- and will continue to-

blu

[Bluerthanblue]

266. i'm NOT willing

to give Roberts a 'pass' if he did anything less than exactly what every adoptive parent (privlidged or NOT) has to do.

And i also DON'T believe people who adopt, special needs or not deserve any praise. People should never take on the responsibility, and precious task of loving, and raising a child for any reason other than they desire to parent, (knowing as best they can what they are in for- which in my view is a 'lifetime' commitment) and are fortunate to connect with a child who is in need of a permenant loving home.

People may 'want' anything - people can't help 'wanting' what they do- i'm sure that most of us never wanted to have our babies die in utero, or have difficulty carrying a child to term, or have problems concieving- but no ammount of money, prestege or co-ercion could change that. Wanting, is not something people really can control-

As for manipulating others, or doing things that are NOT acceptable legally or morally to 'get what you want'- that is something that indeed SHOULD dis-qualify anyone from holding a position of authority such as mr. Roberts is being considered to fill.- And if He is totally above-board, then neither he, nor any of his family have anything to fear.

When i get stopped by a policeman in my car, i have nothing to fear if i haven't done anything wrong- and when i drive, i risk the chance that i might be pulled over (for a trumped up reason, or even for no reason now, thanks to the patriot act). i've made the 'choice' to be 'vunerable' to being questioned about my liscence, registration and inspection- as well as my 'fitness' to be behind the wheel-

That's reality-

As for family predjuices, i faced that issue- and told my relative, that while i loved them, my family came first- and if they couldn't accept my adopted child with the same affection as they did my biological child, then they were forcing me to make a sad choice- but that my children came before their predjuice.

i resented the people who flocked to Romania soon after the 'fall' of cosquesquo- picking up 2-3 children, as if it were a fileen's bridal gown sale..... but that is something they'll have to live with.

My concern is for the child- there are NO guarantees with any child- but no child should lack a loving permenant home.- Not if we are the people we claim to be.

i don't 'fly'- never have, can't afford to-

[beam me up scottie]

280. Well said !!!

Especially about people "wanting" things.
:applause:

[mcar]

11. Normally I'd agree

But we are talking about a nominee for the highest court in the land. If he did not follow the laws in this case, that would certainly disqualify him for the Supremes, IMO.

This is not about the children, per se. It's about 2 lawyers (Roberts and his wife) who may have circumvented laws in order to aquire the children. Considering how many people go through so much year in and year out to adopt children via legal means, I certainly think holding an SC nominee to those standards is a reasonable expectation.

[Booster]

27. I agree with you. I don't know much about the foreign adoption

procedures from any country, but this has the smell of black market all over it, and I don't want someone who would participate in such a thing sitting on the bench either. I hope the Dems don't turn their back on this, but I bet they do. I have no faith in either side in Wash. The only one I've seen working on this is Barbara Boxer, but she only has one voice and without backup that voice can be very weak.

[Sanity Claws]

122. Bingo

That's it exactly. He should be held to a higher standard regarding respect for the law because he would be sitting on the Supreme Court.

[Midlodemocrat]

12. I disagree.

This isn't about the kids. This is potentially about a man circumventing the law. When did he reside in Ireland for a year?

[ClarkUSA]

16. Let's send this to Keith Olbermann

[e-mail]

[IdaBriggs]

28. NO! What's the incentive to FIX adoption laws, if the folks who CAN

don't need to worry about them? Kids aside, this is a moral issue, and its one that affects a lot of us.

Find out what the hell is going on, especially if someone is getting A LIFETIME appointment UPHOLDING THE LAW.

[progressivebydesign]

31. It's not about the kids, it's about OBEYING laws

and considering this fellow is being considered for the highest legal position in the land, he had better fucking follow the law, himself.

[burythehatchet]

52. when you get nominated to the supreme court I'll go easy on that issue

mkay?

[quaoar]

215. LOL

If I am ever nominated to the Supreme Court, the adoption of my son won't be the chief issue raised. I imagine there would be a boatload of "I hate Bush" posts downloaded from DU featured prominently in Republican TV ads.

[Jack The Tab]

65. I agree. God knows what people have to do to adopt children..

And I, for one, would not like to see our side making political hay out of this couples grey-area tactics to adopt children into their home.

[Modem Butterfly]

76. Supreme Court Justices should not use "grey-area tactics"

PERIOD.

[FreedomAngel82]

82. LOL

So if he adopted these kids illegally you're going to let him slide cause "it looks bad"? Give me a break!

[Bluerthanblue]

69. unfortunately for

'his' kids- HE took them into the spotlight- and if he wasn't expecting to be examined with a super fine tooth comb, he should never have accepted the nomination.

Being a lawyer gives him an 'edge' that could mean doing things less than 'moral'- i hope that isn't the case for all of them- and i feel great compassion for the children- but the children are always the ones who bear the wounds of their parents 'decisions'-

and i too 'have been through it'-

Nothing to hide?- nothing to worry about-

[FreedomAngel82]

93. He could've gotten the nomination

without making the kids be there.

[Bluerthanblue]

99. it wouldn't have mattered,

whether they were there or not (and my own opinion of that is that they were being USED,- for the maximum 'family values' effect)

The mere fact that he is their adoptive father, and is seeking the office he is puts his entire life, and that of his family into the public scrutiny areana- like it or not- that is the 'way of this world'-and he knew it, as do ALL political wannabees-

Ask John McCain, or Edmund Muskie, or John Kerry, or Bill Clinton, or any number of people who have had their lives dissected and slandered, and opened to the eyes of the world.

As a parent, i would weigh the cost, versus what 'good' i might ever do VERY carefully- before entering the public 'circus'-

This is nothing new- and the ones who get 'hurt' usually are the ones who least deserve it-

He HAD to have known he was going to be examined- or else he's a fool, or so arrogant that he doesn't care- either of which should dis-qualify him from the job in itself.

[quaoar]

218. If you have really been through it

You'd know that it is never as simple as it appears.

[Bluerthanblue]

229. yes indeed i've REALLY

been through it- do you need proof?

And NO it is NOT easy- i'm not sure it SHOULD be 'easy'- too much hangs in the balance-

i actually was one of the only people to ever have their adoption assisted by 'student' JD's at a very exemplery Law School named for one of the country's most forgettable presidents. (Civil Practice Clinic)

And was given more support, caring, and thorough council and expertice than any 'paid' lawyer could ever have given me.

There was a superb Professor by the name of Bruce Friedman, who died in Bejing China, where he had gone to help establish a similar 'clinic' for the people of China- he was playing basketball, and died, quite prematurely of a heart attack- a better Law Professor, mentor, and champion for children has never lived-

i've 'REALLY' been through it- more than you'd ever believe-

PM me if you still doubt my sincerity- i am not ashamed of our stuggle-

[quaoar]

233. I have no reason to doubt your sincerity

Was your adoption foreign or domestic?

< edit to add: >

My point was to suggest that you, as an adoptive parent, know that an adoption is not as simple as it might appear to the public. You know the kind of BS you have to deal with.

In my case, I had to actually contact my RW ewtremist congressman and my RW extremist senator and ask for their help. That might have been the hardest part of it for me.

[Bluerthanblue]

245. domestic= special needs-

interracial- across state lines which required staying over a week in the birth state, as papers were transfered between govt. agencies.

the placement was also a 'risky' one, because there was a 90 day period when the birth mom could have changed her mind, and we would have had no choice but to return our son, and walk away.... it ISN'T easy-
But i have watched friends, whose financial situation was far above ours have very little problems getting through the system- all of theirs were foreign adoptions.

i'd do it again in a minute if i could- absolutely NO regrets-

[quaoar]

263. My wife and I chose foreign over domestic

for that very reason -- because you could receive a child as your own and then have to give it back if the birth mother changed her mind or if the father sued because the mother didn't tell him about the adoption, etc.

It was an emotional cruelty I wasn't willing to subject us to.

[Bluerthanblue]

275. i can

understand your fear- i'm glad you were able to find a child, and that you succeded in getting through the maze.

That wouldn't have been an option for me, as a trip abroad would never have been affordable, and my heart was drawn to a forgotten group of little ones here in the states.

i really didn't 'fear' my sons mom would have second thoughts- even though the option was there- and although it would have broken my heart to give him up, i would have.

i guess i've lived an odd enough life, that i count out any posibility of potential loss and sorrow- none of us have any 'guarantees'- except that we will all suffer and die at some point.
Between now and then, i hope to fill life with as much joy, and life as possible.

"live each day, like every day's the last one'- cause it just might be.

best wishes to you and your family-

blu

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Bunny]

151. ...

[Mr_Spock]

84. Bullcrap

Unbelievable that you would make an exception for this guy instead of vying for changing adoption law.

[quaoar]

216. I'm doing both actually

The adoption process is full of hypocrisy as it stands today.

I could arrange for a private adoption today here in the United States and it would be perfectly legal for me to pay many of the expenses of the birth mother as part of the arrangement. Yet, if an agency in China or Honduras or wherever pays a mother $100 to cover her expenses it is called "baby-selling."

And then there is the whole question of whether an American who abides by all the rules and regulations of the country of adoption should then be subjected to criticism and ridicule if that country's process does not conform to American standards.

Not to mention the fact that there are thousands of children languishing in orphanages all over the world while assholes debate the terms of their adoption.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

221. Yes, but the point that is trying to be made in this thread is

that Irish children are not languishing in orphanages and the Irish government has strict guidelines as to who can adopt Irish children and who cannot.

Basically what needs to be brought to light here is where the Roberts' adopted these children. If they were born in a foreign country, their has to be visas issued in order to get them into the US. That is one law that cannot be circumvented.

[quaoar]

228. I have no idea what Ireland's laws are

And neither does anyone else here.

Why should anyone jump to the conclusion that because Roberts adopted children from a country whgere adoptions are rare and difficult, that he must have used political influence to do so?

If he threw his weight around to circumvent the law, fine, crucify him.

But without evidence that something shady occurred, all the celebrating on this thread is unseemly and we become no better than the Republicans we despise.

[dchill]

247. Wrong. Laws are laws...

and this guy is a lawyer who wants to interpret the law from the bench of our Supreme Court. It can't be left alone. If he wanted it left alone, he should have declined the nomination to the Supreme Court!

[ScamUSA.Com]

319. of course

agreed... out of bounds

this thread is a disgrace

[Beetwasher]

14. How Did They Get From Ireland to Latin America????

Something very fishy happened w/ this adoption. He wanted nice white, blonde kids, didn't want to wait, and had to pull some strings and do some circumventing to make it happen, I guarantee it. Definitely raises serious ethical questions.

[BamaBecky]

308. That's what I'd like to know too!

Bound to be another story right THERE!

Bama

[stanwyck]

17. My only question

is why we were told the adoptions were from South America.
That seems odd.
Can't anybody just tell the truth anymore?

[CAcyclist]

195. It's Like Laundering Children nt

[SoCalDem]

304. Yes. It was widely reported and no one "corrected" the story

The mention of latin America is what started the whole questioning. had they just said that the children were adopted, who would have even thought to question it..not I..

[patcox2]

19. There are only two possible scenarios here, and both are bad.

First, Roberts openly adopted them in ireland, possibly lying on his application about his residency, or possibly violating an agreement he may have made about residency. In this case, the story about the adoption taking place in south america was just diversion so noone would find out this story.

Second, you should know that Mrs. Roberts has close family in Ireland and goes there a lot, the name of the town they live in is mentioned in some reports. They could have had a member of her family act as a "straw man" and adopt the kids. Then, they went to a court in south america with a fake "private adoption" all set up, under which the family member gave up the kids (probably lying and saying that they were her natural born kids) and the Roberts adopted them.

Remember, back when it was difficult to get a divorce in the US, people would travel to central america to get a central american court to divorce them. Same kinda thing.

I am sure this would violate all kinds of Irish law.

I favor the second explanation.

Contacting Irish adoption officials in the neighborhood of Mrs. Roberts family is the next step.

[BQueen]

113. Excellent points and I agree the second is more likely

good catch on the Mrs. Roberts family connection -- that is the best starting point.

[Sanity Claws]

123. Third possibility

They paid for the birth mother to go to South America where she gave birth. The adoption then occurred under the laws of the S.A. country where the birth occurred.
Still very gray and yes, I do think this is reprehensible for a potential Supreme Court nominee to do.

[KoKo]

186. Possible, but there were two birth mothers...even though the articles

about this give everything from the babies were "less than 9 months apart" to 4 1/2 months apart, meaning that according to one of the articles the two children weren't siblings. There's something odd about all these reports that differ about the adoption circumstances.

[LSU_Subversive]

249. i'm not attesting to the veracity of the article, but it said the

following:

"Jack McCay, law partner of Roberts’ wife Jane and a friend, speaks of the couple’s adoption of John (Jack) and Josephine, born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart."

more...

“As frequently happens when you go through the adoption process, some of the efforts weren’t successful, and it continued for a time … But when the opportunity came along to have not just one but two kids, they took both babies without blinking.”

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599

[Inland]

273. Those aren't the only two possibilities.

First, there isn't much info on the children being Irish: or even born in Ireland. It's fully possible that the children are "from Ireland", that is, immigrants TO Ireland. Frankly, there aren't that many blond Irish kids either.

Second, if the children were BORN IN Ireland, they may have been born to foreign non-Irish nationals and have dual citizenship that allows them to be adopted under another nation's jurisdiction.

Third, the children could have EMIGRATED FROM Ireland to a third country that doesn't give a shit who adopts from where.

Since this seems to be a private adoption, the birth parents can provide a number of different scenarios not available to a child, say, in an Irish orphanage.

[RobertSeattle]

20. If this were a Democrat Nominee...

But where's your link about "it's offical"??? Update: I see:
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1086120,00.html - thanks.

[Cronus Protagonist]

155. I think you meant "Democratic"

It is the Democratic Part, not the "Democrat" party.

[RobertSeattle]

276. Thanks for the reminder

[Missy M]

21. If each year only a few Irish children are placed for adoption....

I am sure there are plenty of couples in Ireland wanting to adopt. How did it happen that those two children were adopted by a couple in the US. Something is not right and the truth should come out. This whole thing is very weird.

[M155Y_A1CH]

30. Hi Sis! n/t

:hi: :)

[CBHagman]

134. How do you know that? What are you basing this on?

"I'm sure" -- yeah, that's scientific. "Something is not right and the truth should come out." What are you basing this on?

[Missy M]

192. I am basing it on the accounts I have read. John Roberts should..

set the story straight. It is strange that the first accounts said the children were adopted from Latin America. They are two Irish children obviously not from Latin America. How did the adoption take place there? I was not being scientific (I didn't realize we were talking about science). I restate "something is not right and the truth should come out".

[Walt Starr]

22. Good detective work!

There are definitely some questionable issues surrounding these adoptions!

[Igel]

24. You do have at least two reliable sources for this, don't you?

Or is it the one "friend" in one magazine story who rambled on to a single reporter, and who offered no proof whatsoever?

Because if it's the latter, please tell me you're neither a judge nor a defense lawyer, nor work in any sort of academia where evidence has to be weighed.

Or that "It's official" is your family's way of saying, "Gee, there's this rumor ...", like my family uses the word "mickey" to refer to a mouse.

[Walt Starr]

26. She's citing the State Department site about Irish adoption

:eyes:

[rinsd]

48. Which is a fine source....

...but the source for whether the children were from Ireland is a friend quoted in the Time article. Said friend also appears to misstate their reported ages.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

54. This is my concern too. There is a need for another source. For all

we know they might have told the friend they were from Ireland for their own personal reasons. Now if the law associate said that he handled the adoption, that would be a different matter.

[KoKo]

57. Yes...the ages of the children are disputed in several articles fromMSM

sources. One article has the kids being 5 and 2 years old respectively while in the same article saying that the boy John is 4 years old. :eyes: Time Magazine. Then another article says the children were born 4 1/2 months apart? How can there be this much discrepancy?

Anyway it would have been better if the Roberts themselves declared where they adopted the children and the circumstances surrounding it. They would have had sympathy from all of us. As it is there does seem to be alot of misinformation even surrounding the kids real ages.

Here are links to the different MSM articles from a Blog I found while Googling for information after reading this post. Other DU'ers gave links up above when I asked if there was a link to an article about the children being from Ireland.
------------------------------------

2. Where are the Roberts children from originally?

According to Time magazine, they were born in Ireland:

Jack McCay, law partner of Roberts' wife Jane and a friend, speaks of the couple's adoption of John (Jack) and Josephine, born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart. "As frequently happens when you go through the adoption process, some of the efforts weren't successful, and it continued for a time ... But when the opportunity came along to have not just one but two kids, they took both babies without blinking."

As the foregoing indicates, because the children are so close in age -- less than 9 months apart -- Josie and Jack are not siblings (even though they look like they could be related). Their being Irish-born is not entirely surprising, in light of the fact that Mrs. Roberts's family "held onto its ties to Ireland, keeping a family home in the small town of Knocklong in the County of Limerick, where they still gather at least every two years" (as reported by the New York Times).

More links to MSM Articles here....

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html

[rinsd]

74. The ages seem to all over the place....

"Anyway it would have been better if the Roberts themselves declared where they adopted the children and the circumstances surrounding it. They would have had sympathy from all of us. As it is there does seem to be alot of misinformation even surrounding the kids real ages."

I would have to agree. At this point, it would be better to clear this up than to let it get ugly.

[FreedomAngel82]

95. Yes

Why so much disinformation on them?

[Igel]

71. What (48) said.

Before I reach down and knot my nappies, I want to know that the number of witnesses at least match the number of bits that are going to be inconvenienced by the knotting.

(Sorry, but there's a Latin pun in there: 'testis' is also Latin for 'witness'.)

I'm vaguely uncomfortable that so people are up in arms when a very small investigation is called for first: Are the kids from Ireland, as one guy says?

Everything else that's been called for depends on the one little assumption that the guy is infallible and was correctly reported, and all the other sources are wrong or incorrectly reported.

[AzDar]

25. There are only a "few Irish children available to adopt each year"...???

Does anyone happen to know how/why this is?

[Justitia]

49. I have a friend from Ireland that I asked about this....

She said that adoption is not very common in Ireland (even between Irish citizens/children), she said she would almost say there is a social stigma against it. In cases where a child cannot live with their birth parents, it would be assumed they would live w/another family member - no matter how remote the relationship (aunt, uncle, cousin, 2nd cousin, even neighbors or co-workers).

She said that adoption of Irish children to non-Irish is almost unheard of, unless the adopting family were distant relations. It is, in fact, mostly illegal (at least in intent).

She added that this is a country protective of it's cultural citizenry (?) and Ireland is not quick to grant citizenship (you MUST have demonstrable Irish in your genealogy), getting a work permit as a non-citizen is almost impossible - Ireland believes in preserving it's industries for the Irish.

As a caveat, she said, of course nothing is impossible, but lots of arms would have to be twisted to have accomplished those things above, and it most certainly would not be looked at as above raised eyebrows.

I do remember reading the release of financial info from Roberts, and he mentioned have a % of ownership in some property in Ireland (a 1/16th ownership in a farm or something rings a bell), so maybe that is how he claimed residency, who knows.

:shrug:

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

60. I don't think a 1/16th ownership of a farm or any other

domicile would be considered residency.

According to the State Department, you have to be resident in Ireland for a year to even be considered for adoption.

My husband and I have very dear friends that are both Irish citizens and Irish residents. When they adopted their son in 1991, because they lived in Northern Ireland at the time, they sold their business and their home in Northern Ireland and relocated to the Republic of Ireland in order to conform with the adoption laws. This couple still reside in the Republic of Ireland.

Under Irish law, anyone born in Northern Ireland is considered an Irish citizen. I know this because my husband was born in Northern Ireland and he still holds his Irish passport. He is also entitled to hold a British passport, but he would never consider that.

My husband and I also own a home in Northern Ireland, but because we don't live in it, we rent to tenants, we have no right to vote in any election even though we pay the "rates", ie. property taxes on it every year.

I could be wrong, but in order to be considered a resident of the Republic of Ireland, you have to live there for a specified amount of time, which I believe is one year....

[FreedomAngel82]

98. Oh wow

Lots of good information. So how did he get these Irish kids? Did they live in South America long enough to be considered citizen's and do the Irish do that?

[FreedomAngel82]

97. Interesting

Does your friend say anything about how they could do that with using property?

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

118. The sticking point here, at least for me, is the residency requirement.

As far as I can see, under Irish law in order to even be considered a candidate for adopting an Irish child, you have to be a resident in the Republic of Ireland for at least one year.

I also have another friend, whose adoption from Ireland became final on June 15, 1964. Her adoptive parents told her that she was one of the last children to be allowed to be adopted from Ireland to the US. I believe the Irish government amended their laws in 1964 to prohibit the adoption of Irish born children to families in the US.

The reason my friend's adoptive parents were allowed to do this was, she believes anyway, was that her parents started the adoption process in 1962 when she was born, before the law was changed in the Republic of Ireland. The fact also that her adoptive father was himself an emigrant to the US from the Republic of Ireland might have had something to with it as well.

[Justitia]

120. We didn't talk about "residency", mostly about adoption / citizenship -nt

[AzDar]

187. Wow....Thanks for that!! n/t

[Henny Penny]

197. I think we tend to go for fostering rather than adoption to support

any existing family unit, that may be going through some sort of crisis.

This whole deal strikes me as very odd, as Irish people are often forced to adopt babies from abroad because so few are available here.

[MADem]

29. Just because someone was BORN in Ireland does not automatically

...make them a citizen. Could well be a Bolivian woman got up the pole by a Irishman who scampered on her, and she had the child (children?) and returned to her native land. The blond hair on those kids could well be the result of the strong German influence in Latin America post-WW2....

Rules
Citizenship through birth in Ireland up to 31 December 2004
If you were born in Ireland and your parent(s) were Irish, then you are also an Irish citizen.

However, some people, (even though they may have been born on the island of Ireland), can only claim Irish citizenship by making a declaration on a special form. These people include:

A person born on the island of Ireland to a non-national who at the time of that person's birth was entitled to diplomatic immunity within the State
A person born in Irish sea or air space to a non-national on a foreign ship or in a foreign aircraft
A person born on the island of Ireland who has made a declaration of alienage under Section 21 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (i.e., a person who has declared that he or she is no longer an Irish citizen). Such a person can resume Irish citizenship by making a declaration in the prescribed form.
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/migration_and_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html

Everyone is assuming that because the kids were born in Ireland, they are Irish--if Mom was from some other country, and Paw is unknown or unfound, or even known and not Irish either, then that is not the case. Also, the parent could have been a dual national, renounced the Irish citizenship, and resumed it (or not) AFTER the adoption.

If there is a law, there is often a way around the law.....

[Catherine Vincent]

32. I don't think this will be pursued.

The Roberts' have been raising the kids since they were babies. If they did find that there were illegalities in adopting them, there is no way they would take the kids from them. So what's the point?

[Missy M]

34. The point is that a SC nominee did something illegal, it is not about..

the kids or taking them away.

[quaoar]

240. What did he do that is illegal?

So far I have not seen any specific allegation of illegal conduct, unless I missed something while I was out.

[Modem Butterfly]

35. So he shouldn't get a seat on the SCOTUS, that's "so what"

It's not about the children, it's about a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land.

[Catherine Vincent]

44. I agree but the question is....will a big stink be made about it?

I don't think the Democrats will and we know damn sure the republicans won't.

[crispini]

36. The point is a question of ethics

Did they do something illegal or shady to obtain the children? That would most certainly reflect on Roberts.

I was previously of the mind "leave the kids alone" but this is beginning to look relevant.

[HootieMcBoob]

40. If they did adopt the kids by skirting the law

then what might end up happening is he will decide to decline the nomination to the SC. If it looks like this might affect his family the only thing he could do is step down.

[seabeyond]

42. exactly modem. at the point one says, why did he lie

we are talking the fuckin supreme court.

[Psephos]

46. Let this alone. It's as ugly as ugly gets.

And save the line about only being concerned over his adherence to law, unless you can honestly say you wouldn't be shrieking about the ugliness of it all if Roberts was a leftie.

Some things transcend politics, and this is one of them.

Two good children have a better life now than they might have had otherwise. I don't need much more than that.

Peace.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. What I can't figure out...

...is what everyone thinks the end result of this will be. Does anyone honestly think Bush would chose someone with a better record if Roberts had to decline? I'm not saying that we shouldn't fight the Roberts nomination, just that it ought to be fought on his voting record, because that's what matters.

[Karenina]

80. I'll make it simple for you

Do John Roberts and his wife consider themselves and THEIR PERSONAL DESIRES ABOVE THE LAW?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

108. Of course they do.

He worked for the White House.

[Prism]

58. Amen

"Some things transcend politics, and this is one of them."

Thanks for saying this.

[FreedomAngel82]

100. Oh good grief

So would the republicans give the same thing to a democratic nominee who could've gotten children against the law? :eyes:

[Psephos]

105. Are you saying your standards are determined by repukes?

I'm on the left because I think we've got a better take on humane treatment of others...even, god forbid, those who have different political leanings than us.

Please don't prove me wrong.

Peace.

[Modem Butterfly]

114. Humane treatment does not involve turning a blind eye...

...to potential ethical lapses...

[rinsd]

119. No it doesn't....

...it also does not excuse ethical lapses on our own part because "they do it too".

[Modem Butterfly]

124. So we just turn a blind eye to potential wrong-doing?

How is that okay?

[rinsd]

128. No....

I'm saying this should be handled with the sensitivity one would expect from decent people.

So far we have one source that they were from Ireland. In the same account that source gave different ages for the children. Also in the same account it was implied that both children were adopted at the same time. This differs from a WaPo account that states the girl was adopted 5 years ago and the boy a year later.

Now, I'm all for going after wrong doing but right now this angle seems to be hanging on a single source.

Is there lots of conflicting info out there about the childrens ages, where they were adopted from etc? Yes.

Does that automatically make it suspiscious? No. How often has the MSM gotten basic facts wrong?

In light of the conflicting information I would think it best for the Roberts to issue a statement about this. I say that even though it makes my skin crawl to say to adoptive parents that they have to prove their innocence against what at this point isn't much more than rumor.

[Modem Butterfly]

133. Hopefully, his adoption records will be part of the documents...

...offered up to Congress, just like his marriage records, school records, financial records, business records and wife's records.

And FYI, adoptive parents, particularly those who adopt foreign kids, have to prove that they're legit every step of the way, particularly when it comes to immigration.

[rinsd]

116. I am sick and tired of that excuse....

...we demonize Republicans for the the wrong we see them commit, for their mentaility, for their ethics and the best we can come up with when confronted with an ethical decision is using the republican scale?

I'm not saying this necessarily in refererence to this particular issue. There seems to be some conflicting information out there that still needs to be sorted out but the "republicans do it too or would doit" excuse making has got to stop.

[gkhouston]

111. this DOES transcend politics

if a liberal nominee had done what is being implied here, I'd be just as outraged. I don't want someone who thinks they can twist the law to their personal benefit interpreting law for the rest of us. Someone like that has no ethical foundation and would not be trustworthy, even if their apparent stand on judicial issues coincided with mine.

[shanti]

127. sorry

this IS important. do you want an unethical supreme??

[peacebaby3]

152. We're adopting. Why should the Roberts get away with not having to go

through all of the same requirements we have to suffer through?!?!? It's not right. Basically what you are saying is that if you have more power and money, you can just skirt the system, but people that are not wealthy and powerful like my husband and I have to follow all the procedures, have our lives and finances completely investigated, etc.,etc. because we are not as well financed and connected.

That's crap. If you think the laws should be changed for adoption, I will agree with you, but letting the rich and powerful get away with not following the law in place is certainly never going to get anything changed.

[SoCalDem]

290. Exactly.. I bet if you had 500K to spen, you would have a baby

in very short order.. people with money have connections, and access to all kinds of "special arrangements"..

[Mr.Green93]

47. Where is the mother?

How do we know if she is even alive?

[terrya]

51. Ok...will this get his nomination derailed?

I don't understand how this is really pertinent. Forgive my ignorance, but how does this impact his nomination to the United States Supreme Court? :shrug:

[Misunderestimator]

53. If he circumvented laws, he should be disqualified.

Judges at lower levels have been disqualified for far less... such as not paying taxes for nannies... This is pretty big.

[terrya]

72. I'm not being facetious here.

I genuinely didn't grasp the import of this.

Thanks.

[Misunderestimator]

87. I know you're not...

I don't even think you could be facetious if you tried. :)

:hi:

[Chalco]

61. If a woman did it, she'd be gone in a heartbeat.

That having been said, I don't think it should derail him. I also don't think whoever it was in NannyGate should have been derailed either.

[Renew Deal]

62. That sucks.

This is not a good ground to fight on unless he was blatantly dishonest.

[Modem Butterfly]

73. We don't know that unless we look

And we have to look. The man is a potential Supreme Court Justice. We have to know if he played fast and loose with the law.

[momisold]

63. I have an adopted child.

We adopted a child from another state. We could have adopted from an agency right in the town where we were living, but didn't want to risk running into the birthmother. Also, our birthmother chose us, we did not choose her. She had a say about who would raise her child.

Why do I say this? Because there are SO many differentials/variables that can come into play concerning adoption. Each country, even each state in the U.S. has different laws and rules. Unless you are privy to directly, exactly knowing what the circumstances of the Roberts' adoptions are, don't go hurling accusations. Maybe the Roberts didn't want direct contact with the birthmother, maybe they didn't want her to know where the kids are. Our birthmother does not know where we live. That is one of the reasons we adopted out of state. Maybe the birthmother wanted her child to live in the U.S. because she thought it would be a better place to grow up. Maybe doing the adoptions the way they did sped up the process. We chose an agency who said they could get us a baby fairly quickly over agencies who said there was a 2-3 year wait. Were we wrong to do that? There are so many legal, legitimate possibilities of how the adoptions took place. Don't immediately assume that they did something wrong.

Do you blast others who adopt from China, Russia, etc. Do you preach at them that they need to be adopting American children? If not, then you can't hold the Roberts to a different standard. Every family has different needs, requirements, etc for what they expect from adoption, and you can't tell them they are right or wrong in those expectations.

So wait and see what shakes out about this. And if you are wrong and everything was legit and legal, shame on you for putting those children on trial.

[Modem Butterfly]

70. Why are you trying to make this about Roberts' children?

The entire issue has to do with how Roberts may have conducted himself in this particular legal proceeding. Period.

Do you blast others who adopt from China, Russia, etc. Do you preach at them that they need to be adopting American children?

If they are doing something irregular in an effort to circumvent the law, then yes. I don't think anyone should get a free pass on breaking the law where another human being is concerned!

Every family has different needs, requirements, etc for what they expect from adoption, and you can't tell them they are right or wrong in those expectations.

NOBODY has the right to expect that adoption laws do not apply to them, not even a potential Supreme Court Justice.

And if you are wrong and everything was legit and legal, shame on you for putting those children on trail.

The children are not at issue. They had nothing to do with this. If something was done less than legally, they are the victims.

[bunkerbuster1]

88. Amen. If Bush's appointee is vulnerable anywhere, we exploit it.

If there's something fishy about this "Extraordinary Rendoption", or whatever you might call the practice of scurrying an Irish woman to Latin America to bear a child so's the child could be adopted with a minimum of fuss, make damn sure everyone knows about it.

And let's please stop worrying so much about the damn downside of going negative. Those pricks never do.

[Bluerthanblue]

81. i too have an adopted child,

a child seen by american society as 'unadoptable'-
and i can only say to you that while my "mother bear" instinct comes out for these kids- THEY are not 'on trial'-

And if Roberts wanted to keep them ....'sheltered'.... he's chosen the absooutely WRONG profession- and accepted a nomination that short of running for president couldn't have exposed his children to more scrutiny-

HE made the choice to seek public office- and HE is responsible for putting his life which would clearly include his children under the microscope.

If the adoption is completely legitimate, no one has anything to fear- and actually i DO ask folks why they chose to go abroad for a child, while so many kids right here in our midst languish for a 'forever family'- not that adoption of foriegn born children isn't a 'good' thing- but i see it sort of as forsaking your own family, while making a "noble" but showy decision to rescue a child from far away-

all kids are deserving, but people don't understand the harm american foster care is doing to our own defensless, voiceless victims of the 'american way'.

[momisold]

112. I applaud you

for adopting a child seen as unadoptable. I knew I couldn't do it emotionally or financially. Does that make me a bad person?

Why did you get to make the choice you made, the choice which was best for you and your family? Why am I not afforded the same choice? And why are the Roberts not afforded the same choice?

[Bluerthanblue]

129. i don't want, nor do i merit

anyones applause- my son is a gift, a rare treasure, with whom i have been given the chance to share a portion of this life with.

i don't deny ANYONE their 'choice' to do as they see 'fit' for themselves- and for the people who may or may not enter into their lives.

Just as my family bears the choices we have taken, both positive and negative, both richly rewarding, and painfully sorrowful, you must bear yours, and the Roberts theirs-

Choices come with concequences- even the choice to NOT make a choice- and, i'm not playing word games with you- i'm one who has learned the very hard way about the 'responsibilities' this administration likes to talk so much about, but seeks to avoid at every opportunity.

Nothing makes you a bad person Momisold- as the song so truly goes,

"there is good and bad, in everyone, we learn to live, as we learn to give each other what we need to survive, together, alive".....

not only shades of grey, but a full spectrum of living color-
peace-
blu

[havocmom]

204. Roberts circumvented laws

That is the problem.

So long as you didn't bend, break or mutilate laws to adopt, no one is denying you any choice.

:eyes: It's about law and a man nominated to uphold it at the highest level in our nation! We have every right to expect a person nominated to uphold law would have enough respect for it to not think they are above it somehow!

[Fleshdancer]

136. could you PM me about your adoption experience?

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I would love to hear your story. Ever since I was young, I knew I wanted to someday adopt a child or children(siblings perhaps?) in need of a stable home...not a baby, but someone older. Someone who, like you said, is seen by american society as "unadoptable". I grew up watching a segment on the local news called "Tuesday's Child" where they would feature foster kids in need of adoption. I would see kids my own age without a home and it was extremely upsetting to me.

[Bridget Burke]

101. Non-residents may NOT adopt a child from the Republic of Ireland.

It is illegal, according to Irish law. If Roberts used a legal "shortcut" to obtain his kids, it is worth discussing.

He will be in a position to make legal decisions affecting all of us.

[FreedomAngel82]

104. Then why so much disinformation and different ages?

Why aren't reporters telling the same story about these kids with their ages?

[krkaufman]

64. Or against whom such activity could be used as leverage...

... to affect a Court outcome.

[FreedomAngel82]

67. I think so too

If he's going to dictate my life and when I can have children then I can look into his life as well. Just because he's going to be a SCOTUS doesn't mean he's above the law.

[shanti]

130. AMEN SISTER!

that is exactly what this is about!

[Iris]

89. Hmm. I guess an older, darker American child would not have been good

enough for the former president of "Feminists for Life".

Nice.

[nolabels]

162. This mother and father facade they have put up seems a bit convenient

I bet more dirt surfaces about who these folks really are.

[Kurovski]

92. I think you are absolutely correct, MB

If it is shown that he will get what he wants by any means he can, then he has no real moral ability to uphold the Constitution.

[Caleb]

103. It's very important we investigate his personal life

After all, this guy poses a threat to the right to privacy.

[Kurovski]

110. That's funny. It's ironic.

I wish the attempts to oust a president for getting hummers was as equally ironic.

:eyes:

[tabasco]

106. Many people don't realize the importance of the USSC.

I suspect many of the "let it slide" and "don't go there" crowd fall into the category.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POWER TO FUCK UP THE CONSTITUTION.

If someone does not respect adoption laws, I certainly do not want to entrust him with the US CONSTITUTION !

edit typo

[LSU_Subversive]

257. that's right. and the power to do so for the rest of his/her life.

[question everything]

115. And your source is? The link is for adoption guidelines

not about the Roberts.

I am not crazy about the Roberts but before we start smearing them, or anyone else, can we be better than the freeper and rely on hard facts, not on rumors and innuendos?

[Modem Butterfly]

121. His wife's law partner:

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1086120,00.html

[rinsd]

125. Here's the source for the Ireland info....

...it was from a Time magazine article where a law partner at Roberts's firm speaks about the children. At this point it is the only soruce on the Ireland angle.

Here's a pretty good rundown of info on this blog:


http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html

Here's the passage from Time (taken from the blog)

"
Jack McCay, law partner of Roberts' wife Jane and a friend, speaks of the couple's adoption of John (Jack) and Josephine, born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart. "As frequently happens when you go through the adoption process, some of the efforts weren't successful, and it continued for a time ... But when the opportunity came along to have not just one but two kids, they took both babies without blinking."

See I have problems with this account because the ages are different, and here's another I just picked up on from this blog. The WaPo reports that the girl was adopted 5 years ago and that the boy a year later. The above implies they got both at once.

[Missy M]

190. Why do you say the law partner account implies they got both children...

at once? It says they took both babies without blinking. I don't read where he said they got both children at once.

[rinsd]

193. I'm possibly reading too much into it but...

"But when the opportunity came along to have not just one but two kids, they took both babies without blinking."

Now the above could mean a couple of things. Maybe the adoption of the girl was easier than the boy and the process started at the same time but the boy took longer. The WaPo article states that the girl was adopted 5 years ago and the boy 1 year later so the statement above just seems a bit strange. Either the WaPo is wrong or the partner is. At this point, I'll have to wait to see what happens.

[CBHagman]

132. It's about politics.

I'm not going to do this. We are not supposed to be left-wing freepers and Ken Starr types.

[Modem Butterfly]

135. Big Differences: A blow job is not a legal issue

A president is not a life-long appointment.

[Bridget Burke]

149. It's about the law.

And it applies to a man who wants to judge us all.

[Felix Mala]

150. Uh oh, the neocons are going to be mad at us now...

"They went digging into the man's past and now the filthy scum have found something. It's the end of the U.S.... Democracy has failed... Pack your bags for the rapture... What would Alexander Hamilton Say?... Abe Lincoln is rolling over in his grave... No where in the Constitution do the word "Legal Adoption" appear when talking about judges; this is something the "living document" buffoons have made up... Will the last American out of the country please take down the flag?..."

[rucky]

153. Send 'em back to the orphanage!

sorry, can't agree with you on this one. adoptions should be easier and less expensive.

[Modem Butterfly]

154. Should there also be fewer adoption laws?

[rucky]

156. the process can be streamlined

why does Ireland only adopt out "a few" kids each year? there are more than a few qualified and interested parents.

[Modem Butterfly]

157. There are, apparently, fewer children in need of homes

Different countries are, well, different, aren't they?

[rucky]

158. then maybe that's why adoptions are rare in Ireland.

if so, then why all the fuss?

[Modem Butterfly]

159. Because Roberts may have circumvented the law

He may have had a backdoor adoption, revealing not only his own contempt for the law, but a huge hole in Ireland's adoption laws that literally endangers every child in Ireland's adoption system.

[rucky]

163. round and round we go..

i'm not saying it's not worth looking into. it's just that getting outraged over adoption - to the point of falling on the side of what seems to be an unreasonable law - is insincere and probaqbly a losing battle. especially since there are so many other issues to get worked up about (reproductive rights). bottom line of the emotional side of the debate is that two kids have lived a life of privlidge and turned out ok (not how I would've raised them, but hey...). I'm usually not that utilitarian, but when it comes to kids, the end justifies the means. The bureaucratic bullshit that stands in the way of parents adopting is rarely for the welfare of the child ($$$).

[Modem Butterfly]

165. I don't want an "ends justify the means" Supreme Court Justice

it's just that getting outraged over adoption - to the point of falling on the side of what seems to be an unreasonable law - is insincere and probaqbly a losing battle.

As an adopted person, I assure you, I am very sincere. Moreover, I don't think a residency requirement is too onerous, considering Ireland's previous adoption history. Moreover, if we're not going to get upset about a Supreme Court nominee who thinks he's above the law, that the law is only for little people and shouldn't apply to him, then what will we get upset about?

[rucky]

167. So one of these three things happened...

1) John Roberts did follow the letter of Irish adoption law.
2) Ireland bent their laws to allow the adoption to happen.
3) John Roberts broke Irish law and surreptitously brought home two kids.

What's the most likely scenario? I'd say number two... not number 3.

Suppose it's number 3... Nail him to the wall.

Suppose it's number 2: what adoptive parent would tell the irish govenment, "thanks for the execption, but I'd rather jump through some more hoops first." Can ya blame him?

[Modem Butterfly]

170. Another word for bending the laws is breaking the law

Either one acts within the law or one doesn't. And in any event, anyone who puts his own desires above the law shouldn't be given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

[rucky]

172. scenario #2: Ireland broke their own law.

that better? Do you write your own speeding tickets as well?

[Modem Butterfly]

177. We should look at what part Roberts played in this

If something fishy happened, certainly someone in Ireland is partially resposible. But this fact does not clear Roberts of guilt or responsibility, and if it's proven that he also broke American immigration law (by obtaining a visa under false pretenses) then he should pay the penalty for that as well. Assuming that is the case, of course.

[quaoar]

253. what adoptive parent would tell the irish govenment,

"thanks for the execption, but I'd rather jump through some more hoops first."

Not a single one.

[beam me up scottie]

169. Sorry, but if confirmed, this man is going to make

decisions concerning MY reproductive rights.

You don't think I have a right to know whether or not he's willing to circumvent the law when it comes to himself?

[CAcyclist]

200. Why Is A Life Of "Privilege" Better Than A Life

in Ireland?

My problem with "letting this go" is I see it as a rich and powerful person taking what he wants at the expense of another who is less wealthy and connected but would love the children just as much or maybe even better. A life of wealth and privilege doesn't necessarily equal happiness. These children would never have been relegated to an orphanage.

I feel sorry for these children if they are being used as tools for him to look like a nuclear family, which may or may not be the truth. I wonder if these children were sold on the black market or if the parents were in any way victims. I have a lot of questions that I'd want answered if this was a Democratic candidate.

[rucky]

250. Is there any basis for how you see it?

the only facts we have is:

a) Roberts adopted from Ireland
b) it is difficult to adopt from ireland

EVERYTHING else is just speculation, so just take a chill pill and lets investigate this. If you right, you can tell me you told me so, but I think your imagination is running wild.

There are so many real crimes to pursue, why make stuff up?

This will be my last post on the topic. I'm tired of going back and forth about a fucking hypothetical.

As for "privlidge", send 'em back to the fucking orphanage if they had it so good. Privlidge is life without suffering. You can assume the worst about Republicans and I won't argue, but I have instant respect for people who adopt. Does that mean he'll make a good SCOTUS? Hell no.

I feel sorry for these children if they acutally love their parents, and are subject to wild accusations.

[beam me up scottie]

283. "but I have instant respect for people who adopt"

I don't have "instant respect" for anyone.
Why the hell do they deserve our respect for adopting kids?
That's like saying all biological mothers deserve respect just for giving birth.

Instant respect
There should be no such thing, especially for someone who will have the power to affect the lives of other people for decades.

[rucky]

296. Overpopulation is the #1 problem facing the world today.

until you address everything I've said (which is pretty darn reasonable) instead of cherry-picking my words and twisting them, I have nothing more to say to you and your frothing-at-the-mouth friends. Somehow my statement that adoption laws should be relaxed so more families can afford to do it turned into: I favor a different set of laws for the rich and support black market babies. That line of reasoning has certainly not earned my respect.

Until the accusation that Roberts got his kids on the black market is substianted with anything other than "It's hard to adopt kids from Ireland", then your gang continues to make an ass out of yourselves by attacking me.

I AM NOT DEFENDING ROBERTS. He'll make a miserable Justice, but on this issue alone, I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

this is the third time I'll say it. Kill it. the thread is dead. ignore me and I'll do the same. But I will not end it without defending myself.

[beam me up scottie]

298. Sorry to throw your words back at you.

It sucks when that happens, doesn't it?

Of course, you then retaliate by making personal attacks against me and others who disagree with you.

Keep apologizing for those who circumvent the laws but don't cry when you find out that it's not a very popular stance around here.

[peacebaby3]

161. We're adopting. Why should the Roberts get away with not having to go

through all of the same requirements we have to suffer through?!?!? It's not right. Basically what you are saying is that if you have more power and money, you can just skirt the system, but people that are not wealthy and powerful like my husband and I have to follow all the procedures, have our lives and finances completely investigated, etc.,etc. because we are not as well financed and connected.

If you think the laws should be changed for adoption, I will agree with you, but letting the rich and powerful get away with not following the law in place is certainly never going to get anything changed.

As a person nominated for a life time appointment as a SC justice who is going to interpret the law for all of us, it is important to know that he follows the law. If the Roberts did nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about. I would have no problem with anyone investigating us because we have lost all of our privacy anyway. They know everything about us because we are required by law to follow the regulations in order to adopt.

[rucky]

164. If you could pull strings, would you?...I would. n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

166. I guess laws are for little people like us, not you, right?

No offense, but you'd make a shitty Supreme Court justice.

[rucky]

168. none taken.

so you're a "letter of the law" type, and I'm a "spirit of the law" type.

I think you'll like Roberts. He's a strict constitutionalist.

[Modem Butterfly]

171. I'm an "adopted children aren't black market commodities" person

Apparently, you aren't. Roberts may not be, either. In any event, this issue should be examined before we give him a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

Edited for grammar.

[rucky]

173. Oh yes, adopted children should be blak marked commodities.

write me back when you can be intellectually honest.

[Modem Butterfly]

176. That is what we're talking about here

The laws of most countries do not allow for adopted children to go to the highest, best connected bidder. What you deem bureucratic bullshit is the law making sure the process is as equitable and safe for the adoptee as possible.

[quaoar]

256. But you really don't have any experience with it, Modem

You were adopted, but you haven't adopted. Correct me if I am wrong about that, BTW.

Your perspective as an adopted child is different than an adoptive parent's.

You should at least grant that.

[peacebaby3]

180. Actually, there is a huge problem in foreign adoptions with fraud and

"black market" adoptions. You should do some investigation, you would be surprised. Many children are basically sold into slavery as well. The mother and child both have to have a DNA test before we can adopt that child because there is a huge problem with "black market" adoptions and people kidnapping babies and kids for adoption.

[beam me up scottie]

174. I think MB would make a fine

Supreme Court Justice.


Well, except for that whole kielbasa thing...

[Modem Butterfly]

178. A Kielbasa in every courthouse!

A chorizo on every state house lawn!

Keep church and cured meats seperate!

[hunter]

189. "He's a strict constitutionalist..." What a crock.

That's the big lie they are trying to hide in all these small lies.

Roberts has been swimming with the crooks for a long time. I doubt he'd survive and prosper among them if he was an honest man.

But who knows, maybe he thinks of himself as Shadrach in the furnace. Maybe he is a saint walking among the most despicable sorts of sinners...

Yeah right, sure. His mom's the one in the police station crying out that her little angel isn't a gangster. Oh yeah, some of his friends are gangsters, but little johnnie isn't like that, he's always been a sweet and noble boy.

[peacebaby3]

179. I can't. And if I did, I certainly wouldn't be able to tell the rest of

the country what was appropriate under the law since I obviously wouldn't believe in following it.

If ppl. like the Roberts who have influence and money can take short cuts in adoption there will never be any reform. So it will be the rest of us that continue to have to deal with the headaches whne we want to adopt.

[CAcyclist]

201. I Wouldn't nt

[peacebaby3]

181. Some of the stuff you have to go through is over the top.

I'm sure it cuts down on the # of adoptions by ppl. that would make very good parents. I've thought about quitting several times myself.

The system does need to be reformed. The biggest problem I have with it is the $$$. It will cost us about $35,000-$40,000 to give a child that needs a home a good home. That is debt we will owe before we even have expenses for taking care of the child. Why should it cost that much money? Only about $2000-$3000 of that figur is for the travel. The rest is in fees, etc.

I'm all for some changes being made, but I'm not for the rich and powerful getting away with not having to do the same things as everyone else.

I also take issue with the fact that Ms. Roberts is anti-choice, yet she didn't bother to adopt any children here in the US that were put up for adoption when their mother could not financially or emotionally support them. Why? What a complete hypocrite!

[Bluerthanblue]

232. easier?

in what way do you mean?- Homestudies vary WIDELY in their scope-
it takes MUCH more scrutiny in NH to be a foster parent, than it does to adopt-
Sad but true- why? because the state is 'liable' in foster care- adoptions are 'yours forever'-

There ARE many kids looking for good homes- and many GOOD homes looking for kids- money should never be an issue- unless your looking for 'sunny Susie perfect" and "brave Billy baseball pro to be" which is a terrible way to 'choose' a child-

There are many agencies who will assist in subsities for kids that are not perfect, white, infants- even state subsities.

Dave Thomas was a wonderful advocate for adoption.- A man who really DID put his money and his mouth where his passion was-

[rucky]

303. the first response that's made any sense

money should not be an issue. the barriers some countries put up in international adoptions make the whole issue revolve around money and that, I believe is grossly unfair. I'm still trying to come up with the 20 grand (includes "bribe money") needed to adopt a girl from China.

However, I will not blame Roberts for adopting because his kids are healthy and white (I'm not saying you were, but there's an obvious prejudice on this thread that I can't put my finger on). It's better than growing the population.

[LSU_Subversive]

258. not one person here has implied anything close to what you've

just stated.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[Dorian Gray]

182. Wow!

Having been adopted, I find this whole thing totally reprehensible. There are other things to investigate. His children's adoptions should be off limit! If someone went into MY very PRIVATE adoption records, I'd tell them to screw off.

(And I'm NOT a fan of Roberts in any way!)

[Maat]

206. Amen, Dorian Gray.

And I won't be running for office anytime soon, after seeing the attitude of my allegedly fellow progressives, sensitive, of course, to the best interests of children (sarcasm button off now).

And, yes, my adoption was fair and legal; all the 'i's' were dotted.

And an investigation into an adoption for security reasons, where the results are kept confidential, is far different than a public attack.
And this is what this thread is beginning to look like - the childrens' interests' be darned! As if them reading nasty things about the parents with whom they now share the strongest of bonds is going to help them develop high self-esteem.

I'm no fan of Roberts; I want no part of this, however.

[Modem Butterfly]

217. By this logic, we shouldn't look into Roberts' financial records either

After all, his financial records are confidential. So are his academic records for that matter.

No one is attacking Roberts for his adoption. But these records should not be exempted from examination. Neither should Roberts be exempted from critcism because it would hurt his children; do you think William Rehnquist's children and grandchildren like the criticsm their father earns? No, I'm sure they don't. But that doesn't mean we should shut up and sit on our hands.

I do not want a Supreme Court justice who adopted under less then legal circumstances. I'm surprised someone with as much connection to adoption is apparently comfortable with that.

[Maat]

269. I work on general adoption policy.

Right now, the most important concern is the Roberts children, and no one interfering with their family bonding or self-esteem, that has been built over the years.

So, I will leave examination of his adoptions records alone - for their best interests.

His financial records, or their examination, do not and will not hurt the children; so, that's fine with me.

Our need to know is substantially outweighed by the children's best interest - in not seeing or hearing anything that would interfere with either their familial relationships or self-esteem (or their privacy - they can deal with any issues privately).

It is way too easy to make a half-baked judgment about adoption circumstances, and build something up in one's own mind. I just refuse to go down this road.

And the Rehnquist family gets criticism about their loved one's court decisions - it does not involve a private family matter.

And if someone wants to telephone in a report, based upon a reasonable suspicion, about an impropriety, it can be investigated in private; it is not a public matter.

I've attempted to make my case.

If people are not convinced, let them attempt to proceed; they will not get very far, because the circumstances of an adoption generally involve legally confidential records. However, I will not be a part of such an effort.

Take care and good luck!

[Modem Butterfly]

309. How will this hurt the children?

These children are four and five, barely old enough to attend kindergarten. These are not children who are reading The New York Times or posting at KOS or even watching MSNBC. They are young enough that they likely won't even hear about this until they're old enough to understand, and by that time it will be ancient political history. So I don't buy the argument that this will hurt the children.

We really are talking about a very simple thing: submit their original and altered birth certificates, submit the court orders confirming their adoptions, submit their Visa applications. If all this checks out, then we're done. If it doesn't, then there's a problem. But I suspect that if Roberts has done something less than ethical, he will withdraw rather than submit these records.

[Maat]

318. If I were a judicial candidate ..

and an opponent asked for these records, I'd tell that person to go piss up a rope.

It isn't anyone's business except the parties involved and any county investigators.

And, the children can always grow up and read the comments later.

I guess we are never going to agree on this one.

Take care!

[Maat]

321. Also ...

in my particular case, Hell will freeze over before my daughter's original birth certificate is held up in public with her new one - for safety reasons.

Who knows? Those issues might be present in this case.

[Finder]

183. High profile adopters...

which the Roberts were and are, often use fancy tactics to protect the identity of the children they adopt for the exact reason we see here on this thread.

Many adopters have been swindled out of millions in the past by greedy people who found out the orgin of the children.

Those who use Catholic agencies for adoptions(for example)can use any country in the world legally.

[hunter]

234. It's a delicate situation, but I'm sure Roberts can handle it...

If not, why should he be a Supreme Court Justice?

I'm trying to imagine a situation where Roberts could be "swindled out of millions ... by greedy people who found out the orgin of the children."

I mean like what -- perhaps these are Pope Benedict's kids? Wow, wow, and by two different mothers, no less! Pray for us all, I guess we'd better check out those visits the old guy has been making to Ireland... Well, at least they didn't use birth control!

(So sorry, sometimes I have to beat the Irish out of myself... Just for the record, I'm sort of enjoying our new Pope Benedict.)

But seriously, if the possibility for such a situation does exist, than Roberts should most certainly refuse this nomination. He wouldn't be the first guy to turn down an outstanding career opportunity for the sake of his children and his family.

Catholic agencies do some very good works. Let us pray they dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's in Roberts' case, otherwise it's going to be one ugly circus.

But I still say Roberts brought his kids to the party. I saw the pictures.

[melissinha]

184. they didn't look latin american

No wonder.. I mean.. geez...

[shanti]

207. i mentioned that in the original post about this topic

and was slammed for it. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

185. Good job, MB.

Is anyone in the media looking into this?

[jzodda]

188. This IS IS IS about politics

and its going to make us look bad to try and go after the guy on this issue. Its not a winning issue people and will make us look like sore losers.

This is a personal issue and if this guy was bill clinton we would be jumping all over ANYBODY who attacked him for it...We can not and should not use a double standard.

[hunter]

191. It's one question. Answer it and it's done.

Bill Clinton should have done that. Let's see if Roberts can do that.

You know, if I bring my kids to a rough party, it's my fault if things turn out badly and I have to take them home.

Accepting a Supreme Court nomination is a very rough party. Roberts' overly inflated ego probably prevented him from turning the nomination down.

[shanti]

208. EVERYTHING

is fair game when one is being vetted for the supreme court, imo!

[Radio_Lady]

209. I agree, Shanti -- it's the place where dirty linen gets laundered.

If he wants to get that Supreme Court nomination, we should put his feet to the fire in EVERY CONCEIVABLE way.

Maybe we can stop the conservative debacle -- Remember Clarence Thomas!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

202. Two things to remember:

1) Clinton's first two nominees for Attorney General were rejected on less substantial grounds than this. Who was the nominee who was rejected because she had hired an illegal domestic?

2) There's something fishy about there being multiple stories about the children's origins.

[Radio_Lady]

203. Who at the DU will forward this story to the Irish newspapers?

The thread also has to be important to adoption groups, both here and abroad.

We need to know that this rich, white man played by the rules. If he bent or broke the rules, he must pay.

Let's look for places where this story will be tracked down before the confirmation process begins on September 6, 2005.

If there's smoke here, and we need to check out the fire...

I'll do whatever I can.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

210. If I were a reporter, I'd check their family connection

to a 1/8th interest in a residence in Knocklong, Co. Limerick first and then check into the pro-life groups in Ireland and their connections to the Irish adoption system. Something is definitely up with this story.

[Stinky The Clown]

211. The Repubs killed Lani Guinier's (sp?) nomination for less

[WillowTree]

226. So far there's only one statement, made by a friend...

....and quoted in a magazine article..........an article that does not purport to have investigated that detail..........and many a wild-eyed assumption is being made with not a single shred of evidence that anything untoward was involved with these adoptions. Not a shred.

Apparently I'm the only one here who noticed this info from the State Department site

AVAILABILITY OF CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION: Recent U.S. immigrant visa statistics show that in the last five years there were no immigrant visas given for adopted children/orphans.

[quaoar]

237. That would be incorrect

I adopted a son in May 2001, secured a visa for him from the U.S. Embassy and brought him home.

[WillowTree]

301. From Ireland?

You did the whole residency for a year thing and all?

Wow! I'm impressed. That is one remarkably lucky child! Especially since it would probably have been quicker and easier is some other countries.

Kudos to you!!

[LSU_Subversive]

239. is it just me or does this sound like white-baby sales

[dchill]

244. Roberts is a Republican Conservative...

This type of "ethical" concern does not apply to him or his ilk. This is his due, his right - kind of like a tax cut.

[confludemocrat]

252. "what he deems the greater good"? for his own selfish benefit

These people take and take and take, doing whatever it takes to feel whatver satisfaction they seek.

[LSU_Subversive]

255. i'm astounded at the number of

"lets not discuss this" responses to this thread.

by refusing to discuss the issue because it makes some of us uncomfortable and because we don't have access to official documents or the like, is to essentially entrust the people in question, the people in power, to decide when they will tell us what they think we need to know.

if we don't ask the questions, then nobody will bother to answer them. not that asking the questions guarantees an answer, but we have to at least try. otherwise, we're remaining willfully ignorant.

furthermore, we're discussing the issue on a GENERAL DISCUSSION thread. isn't that the point?

[Psephos]

320. I'm astounded at the number of...

...people who think John Roberts' adopted children are fair game in a political matter. They're not, and it's slimy to say they are. Adoption records are sealed for a damned good reason.

How many posts would this thread get in support of opening sealed adoption records if John Roberts were a donk? Gimme a break. Zero.

I expect convenient hypocrisy from the other side of the political spectrum, but not here. Jeezus, if there's no moral difference between us and them, then what's the point, anyway?

We've got a limited amount of political capital to expend finding legitimate issues with this candidate, and then we go and squander it like drunken sailors itching for a fight on shore leave. Let's turn our attention back to the man's views, philosophies, and record.

To put it mildly, this adoption thing does not play well in the broad political middle. Step away from the koolaid and think about that. It's not only immoral, it's also dumb.

Peace.

[LSU_Subversive]

323. roberts is fair game. not his children. it's disengenuous to imply

that i, or any of the others posting in this thread, who are advocating that we should look into a SCOTUS nominee's possibly illegal adoption, are seeking to target his children. we are not. we are seeking clarity.

[peacetalksforall]

260. There are hundreds of combinations of circumstances that could

produce valid circumstances. (Irish resident in Bolivia or Paraguay or any other country of SA gets into trouble with Irish traveler and makes Irish baby. Citizenship is established as South American under a variety of circumstances). Your imagination could come with all kinds of combinations, as stated.

It's difficult to fathom that a right wing operative like him could do something honest, but it is possible that this adoption is on the up and up.

If some feel strongly they should dig in and research - quietly and present a case for it.

Making a big accusation on the internet is a perfect set-up for a Rovian type trap. The worst thing that could happen would be for a Democrat Congressperson to utter a sound about this.

Instead of proclaiming fraud, it's best to ask fact finding questions to get the kind of answers that are evolving here on this thread thanks to the Irish who are posting here and those with Irish connections. It's risky to proclaim here without some fact finding first because it is such a personal issue.

I don't trust any one at his level and with his participation on very important acts that I think are traitorous to this country - his participation in the Florida theft really gets me going. But, the adoption could have circumstances that make it legal.

If this adoption is suspicious, the Irish need to investigate because it is their law, unless there is a corresponding or supporting law in this country under the circumstances.

No Congressperson is going to touch this without a big blip on the screen coming out of Ireland.

[Inland]

274. Certainly no official dem should go out front

I agree that there are scenarios where Irish immigration law didn't apply...some of which should certainly remain private.

There isn't much reason to speculate, and except for bullshitting it around in a single thread, it looks like there's nothing there.

[creeksneakers2]

262. This all smells like a trap to me

The Republican have $100 million to spend and almost nobody to fight with them. They need a fight. They need to continue the hoax that GOP nominees are "Borked." The righties live to find something to be outraged about.

The righties could just let rumors about the adoption build. Once this got big enough, people would start demanding records. Roberts could say the adoption was private. The righties could start an uproar about the cruel libs trying to get hold of private adoption records. (they've already attacked the NYT this way) After the story boils, Roberts could produce the records and show a simple explanation for everything. It would be a RW dream come true. The public would be outraged at the left, the guys in Washington would be afraid to question future judicial picks, and the RWs could start putting anybody they want on the courts.

Even if Roberts has done something wrong, it would be tough to get hold of the private adoption records to prove it. They'd know if anybody tried too. They knew when the Times requested records. Even if Roberts was caught doing something wrong, they'd still have lots of sympathy because people know how desperate some folks are to adopt.

I think its safe to look at things that are out there in public and be curious, but if this gets to the point where it gets big and there is no proof behind it the left will be taking a huge risk.

[hunter]

299. Well let's see what they do...

Will Roberts and his beloved discuss the adoptions in some folksy softball Larry King type of interview, or will they keep the lid on the pot until it blows up in someone's face?

It's a stupid game.

I personally think Roberts is so worried about everything else in his background that he forgot to set up the obligatory "loving dad and husband" segment with all the major news networks.

But why, oh why, does it have to be such a stupid game? Why whould anyone let rumors about the adoptions build? Why, as a supposedly brilliant Supreme Court nominee, why wouldn't Roberts come up with some fine words to let the steam out of the pot.

Look, it's not as if this guy is going to be living in the streets if he doesn't become a Supreme Court Justice. His wife and kids won't starve.

He can afford to be honest. If he's not willing to be honest, then he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

Even if he answers us with some fancy "none of your business," it will reflect on his skills as a judge to explain why it is none of our business.

[mixedview]

265. leave his kids/wife out of it

I'm so tired of people going after the personal lives of politicians. Some of these people are so qualified but don't get it because of some stupid little thing they did in their personal lives. As an independent and a moderate and a libertarian it really steams me no matter who it happens to ! :grr:

Americans deep down don't like it.

They didn't like it when it happened to Clinton.

They didn't like it when Kerry/Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter.

It violates the libertarian values re privacy shared by most Americans.

I'm not saying Roberts shouldn't be hammered - Dems as the opp party wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't - but I really don't like it when people's personal lives are dragged into it. Really don't like it. It's getting to the point where one has to be a saint in order to run for/be considered for office.

[spindoctor]

289. Thank you. You beat me to it.

These are freeper methods and I for one will not sink to that level.

[beam me up scottie]

292. What level? Expecting a SCOTUS nominee to obey the law?

How dare us!
:spank:

How many more free passes do you want to hand out to appointees from Ye Old White Boys Club?

[spindoctor]

294. From what I read above, the best you have is a suspicion N/T

[beam me up scottie]

295. Oh, okay.

So he and his wife just happen to stumble across two Irish children up for adoption in Latin America and you think it shouldn't be investigated?

Sorry, no free passes for rich white guys-especially those who will have the opportunity to control the wombs of poor non-white women in this country.

[beam me up scottie]

293. He is a SCOTUS nominee.

If confirmed, he will be reviewing and possibly overturning laws that determine who has control over my reproductive system.

It's a lifetime appointment.

I shouldn't be allowed to ask if he bought his children?

It has nothing to do with their personal lives, it has to do with whether or not a SCOTUS nominee obeyed the law.

[chookie]

278. Worth looking into

You are a very perceptive woman, MB, and this was a good catch.

Truly -- Irish adoptions are extremely rare, as there are other methods used when one is required. I do not think Roberts adopted them FROM Ireland -- my best guess is that the children are of Irish descent, and that they were actually born and easily (but expensively) adopted out of South America (Bolivia?)

Perhaps a relative of Roberts is involved -- and she was paid to have her baby in Bolivia (or whereever, and God bless her bravery for doing so :-)). That would be totally okay with me, and I would respect the FAMILY's privacy.

However, if an unrelated Irish woman was involved, I think a bit of looking into is appropriate, because, while this is clearly a "grey" area, it is slightly stinking of circumvention of Irish law about adoptees.

Someone made a connection in the above thread of purebred dogs and white adoptees -- doesn't surprise me, and I suppose it is a lucrative operation. But hey -- we're Democrats, right? -- so if Roberts had adopted black or brown children, he might be easily crucified for subjecting these children to an unnatural racial upbringing. And look at John McCain -- villiified by the RW who smeared him for having an illicit secret biracial offspring because he has an adoption in his family.... Gosh, you just can't win, eh?

But ultimately -- sounds like lots of money is involved....The "racial" dimension is perhaps moot, because Roberts would STILL be criticized if he adopted brown or black babies.

But still -- Roberts obtained white Irish children either because he had connections and cash to acquire them. The Ireland to South America matrix is deservingly worthy of inquiry, although I suspect nothing really important will be turned up. It may in fact be an intensely family matter....

[anitar1]

284. So , for one final time, do you people want their children to be

taken from them? Would that make everyone feel good? I have read so many rabid threads about this matter, and I wonder if the posters want these children to be taken fom the only parents they have ever known? I do not get the feeling that people are posting about living beings. I certainly do not champion Roberts, but I do think that they must have feeling for their children, whether they are adopted of not.

[beam me up scottie]

286. Who said that? Show me where ONE poster suggested the children be taken.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

It's not a question of their feelings, it's a question of whether or not a SCOTUS nominee thinks the law doesn't apply to him.

"you people"?

Which people?

Those of us who believe that Supreme Court Justices should have to obey the laws that they are supposed to uphold?

[BikeWriter]

302. You are missing the point. The point is, is this SCOTUS nominee...

honest or not. His decisions will literally affect the future of Planet Earth!

[chookie]

322. Calm down!

Did I say that their children should be taken from them? I was merely trying to understand the HOW of the adoption. I think it is a valid question to ask : How do Irish children end up being adopted OUT of South America?

You attribute motives to me and to others posting in this thread that do not exist.

"Just the facts, Ma'am/Sir. "

I apologize, but I am one of those folks hung up on analyzing facts.

[beam me up scottie]

297. You know, even if the adaptions turn out to be on

the up and up, all legal and above board, the hypocrisy of these people is stunning.

They want to ban abortions and force poor, non-white women in this country to have babies that nobody wants, not to mention all of the older children that have been in the system for years, and yet look at how selective they were about the children they adapted.

Revolting.

[Maru Kitteh]

300. Why did he have to circumvent the law to adopt uber-white children

What does it say about him as a person that he would beak the laws for a milky-white baby?

[BamaBecky]

307. Great find!...n/t

[Radio_Lady]

310. Don't have time to read all the responses, but is anyone contacting

Irish or other adoption agencies? Are you willing to report back what you find out?

It seems we are divided on this issue. That's a shame, but it's an ethical issue and we may not all be reflecting the same background.

As for me, John Roberts is a rich, handsome, well-spoken conservative. If that's what you want on the Supreme Court, fine. I don't agree and think we should bring up everything we find about him.

[Modem Butterfly]

312. To the people on all sides of this issue: A round of applause

It's not often threads get over 300 posts without some major flammage. I think everyone has shown a great deal of thoughtfulness and wisdom on this thread. And that's terrific! Way to go, DUers!

:applause:

[beam me up scottie]

314. I just noticed that myself!

Excellent thread, MB.
Hopefully it won't affect your image...:hide:

[caligirl]

324. Bolivia angle

Bolivia
... of the Hague Convention on International Adoptions, US citizens who are not
resident in Bolivia are not permitted to adopt Bolivian children. ...
travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1069.html - 56k - Cached - Similar pages