NY Slimes Investigates Adoption Records of Supreme Court Nominee's Children

Yeah, I don't really see the need to delve too deeply into the kids' adoptions.

 

Is this the same Drudge that had declared one of Rupert Murdoch's sons dead earlier this year? Got it.

 

1) I am firmly against infants adopting other children. It's just not right, and Judge Roberts and his wife should have at least waited until they were teenagers to become parents like the rest of the people from Indidana.

2) Jesus Cristo! Those kids look about as latin as Mats Wilander and that girl in Slippery's avatar!

3) It's not nice to make fun of that severe of a case of ADD.

4) Bravo! They were either dressing their kids like that to pander to some bizarro 50s conservative cult, or they should be investigated by DCFS.

I don't think it is good form to look into their chillins, but I guess in the world of nanny-gate and other scandals, whether or not the Roberts (the adult ones) followed the rules and the law is probably fair game. Although it is a shame that we are at this point.

Also, I probably shouldn't be making fun of the good kids Roberts, however, I am equally sickened by such a blatant use of your children for photo ops.

I understand that this was the biggest day in Roberts life, and I would want my family nearby as well, but when it is him and the president standing at the podium to make this prime time announcement, there is no need for the family to be right there unless you are using your kids for image purposes. If its me, I've got my family in the next room to meet the President, to share the day etc., but I walk out alone. When Roberts is issuing a decision in a big case, does he parade his kids out on the bench?

Frankly, that was one thing I admired about both the Clintons and the Bushes, is that they kept their kids out of those photo ops in an effort to protect their children's privacy.

 

You know, I'm not saying Ian's full of poopoo (at least here) but I'm going to wait until someone other than our friend Matt reports this. I just don't want to jump the gun or anything here. In the 1500s, they castrated you for stuff like that.

 

Considering the source...

I will accept the following 'fact' - the NYTimes has a reporter looking into the story of how the Roberts family came to be.

The motive for that? Well, that's speculation. It can be background for a story on Roberts' life. The reporter could simply be asking John or his wife - 'why did you decide to adopt instead of going the old-fashioned way?'. This can be a good thing, a positive piece - adoption is touted as a better solution than abortion, so putting good adoption pieces in the paper cannot hurt.

Of course, the reporter may have heard a rumor that these kids look a lot like the Aryan grandchildren of Nazis who fled to South/Central america at the end of WW2. And maybe he's asking - 'just exactly where did these kids come from, anyway? Most central american adoptees are a bit more tan...'

I guess we can't tell until the story is written.

 

So why isn't anyone asking how children are relevant to the nominee's judicial knowledge?

The NYT's is on a tawdry fishing expedition and it should be firmly smacked for such! These kind of stories make me realize the slime that is journalism and the sewer depths these slimeballs live at! Puke on 'em all!

 

That was my first thought. I wonder if they dye their hair blonde?

 

1. This is what constitutes news on most channels and in most newspapers these days, regardless of slant.
2. It's not that big a deal.
3. This is the best Druge has today? What no celebrities are snorthing blow off some object that has never been used to snort blow from before?
4. Those kids are Latin American? They look like they came right from the set of The Village of the Damned.

 

This makes the most sense. I figure once Roberts is confirmed, they'll do a big feature on him, and why wouldn't you ask about the adopted kids?

But of course, we are talking about Drudge.

 

I was going to give you some rep for this, but I ran out, as I spent my last bit neg-repping Ian for starting yet another idiotic, moronic, dumb, stupid, and dunderheaded thread based on the Least Reliable Source of News Ever (TM).

 

Ian, baby stealing DOES happen. If they were involved in such a thing, do you think it would be relevant?

Your mania for shutting down any inquiry into this guy is like the tell-tale heart.

 

I thought I had read in one of the early bios that came out that Judge Roberts and his wife conceived children in their 40's. I even seem to recall a quote from him about how they "just got lucky."

This thread is the first time I've read that the children were adopted. Anyone have a news source other than Drudge one way or the other?

 

Dumpster Diving By The NYT
http://noonzwire.blogspot.com/2005/08/grey-lady-goes-dumpster-diving.html
As you've probably heard by now, The New York Times has assigned an investigative reporter to examine the adoption records for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' two children, Josie and Jack. The Times claims that this is part of their "standard background check" on Judge Roberts. I thought that performing background checks was the FBI's job. Maybe the Times is trying to expand into new avenues, since its circulation has been declining for years. What's next? The pimping out of Paul Krugman to do my taxes? Of course, this "standard background check" line is a bunch of malarkey. The Times, desperate to find dirt on the squeaky-clean Roberts, has fallen to a point where the publishers are actually directing employees to follow through on suggestions made by deranged Daily Kos commenters. And so it goes. Into the gutter wades investigative reporter Glen Justice to perform what amounts to opposition research against 4 and 5-year-olds.

And here:

DUMPING ON THE NYT'S DUMPSTER DIVERS
http://michellemalkin.com/index.htm

 

Over-reaction, ludicrous rhetoric, and feelings of persecution used to be character traits of liberals and democrats.

Now republicans have equalled.

sniff sniff..it's like my little baby has all grown up sniff sniff....

 

You have children?

 

I do, and I would never parade them in front of the cameras in their "Sound of Music" gear because I wouldn't want them to become the focus in any way of my career path.

I don't think the Times should go down this path, but I don't think it is the slimey thing you think it is. If they were looking at the kids specifically -- ex. let's see their report cards or attendance records -- THAT would be slimey.

My understanding is that they are looking at the actual adoption which is really an examination of the parents. Did they follow the law. Did they use any kind of influence to jump ahead in the line.

I just hope they had the good sense to tell these kids that they were adopted before this.

 

Research is never slimey.

Acting on the results of that research to smear someone, especially children, is.

Non-story until the NYT runs with something.

 

Are we still working off the Drudge "scoop" or have other right wing blogs weighed in?

 

Research can't be slimy?

Boy, I am going to add "naivete" to my ever-growing list of lefty bizarro qualities.

Meanwhile, does anyone here doubt that every liberal organization is the world -- and that includes, of course, the editorial staff of The New York Times -- is desperately trying to dig up some dirt on Roberts?

Anyone on here wanna say "No?" to this question? Anybody?

Oh, and what's the over under on when sombody says..."Bbbbbut, conservatives do it too!! They do!! The really really do!!!"??

Anyone on here wanna take a shot at that? Anybody?

 

Nah, conservatives don't research dirt, they just make sh!t up.

Sincerely,


The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

 

Of course not, because everyone knows that you, with your infinite supply of knowledge, insight, and indeed wisdom, combined with a veritable arsenal of rhetorical weaponry, would reduce us to piles of quivering ideological waste.

 

Be honest, now--it's already on your list.

 

Or could they be doing background research for a profile feature on Roberts?

Paging Occam, paging Occam. Please come to the information desk and bring that razor with you.

 

I note that you don't ever post on topic here Wanker... this is yet another case. You don't contribute for or against New York Times issue (re: adoptive records of nominee)... just you weight in and do your usual drive by slime, this time on Karl K...

Do you have anyting to say on topic? Anything at all? Karl at least posted his opinion on topic... have the courtesy to do the same.