| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Liberal press hits bottom investigate adoption records of Judge Robertsâ two kids |
| 2005-08-04 |
| The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Robertsâ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals. Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants. Both children were adopted from Latin America. A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions records are part of the paper's "standard background check." When reached by phone Thursday morning, Glen Justice had no offical comment. Robertsâ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his fatherâs Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldnât stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience. Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony. One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMESâ plans declared: âTrying to pry into the lives of the Robertsâ family like this is despicable. Childrenâs lives should be off limits. The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.â One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. âThis canât possibly be true?â The press is despicable as well as the liberals. Family should be off limits, unless they are suicide bombers or something. And looking and printing stuff about an adoption? Someone nuke the NY Times, Please... |
| Posted by:mmurray821 |
| #32 According to Brit Hume tonight, a lawyer he talked with, said the NYTimes was trying to get from him, HOW to get into those closed records. This lawyer said, "This is despicable." The NYT wasn't on a "fishing expedition," they were trying to find the lake. Wonder if the next step for the NYTimes will be to find the DNA of all the Clintons.... no, I'm not even gonna go there. But that is the path this is leading down. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2005-08-04 22:01 |
| #31 I have faith in the Liberal Press, they will find a way to go lower than this. I just can't imagine how yet but they will. Stinking incestual necrophiliacs is what they are! |
| Posted by: Unegum Whaimp3886 2005-08-04 20:03 |
| #30 Dr. White, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that's not the way things work at the court house with reporters. Some compromising pictures, some bribes, some desire to get even, and nothing is private. Oh, somebody did something illegal? Happens every day. Can't prove it was the Times reporter. Look how hard the Plame Game is. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-04 19:04 |
| #29 This is going to make me very angry. Full disclosure: my wife and I adopted our daughter. Adoption records are not public. There's a movement in the US, which I support in various ways, to allow adult adoptees to have access to their state records. But that does NOT extend to a news organization in any way, shape or form. Family adoption records are PRIVATE. Once an adoption has been finalized by a court it is OVER, FINAL and DONE. I don't even know how the NYT can get the records unless they do something illegal. The court clerk sure as hell knows not to hand them to anyone. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-08-04 18:56 |
| #28 MoDo has a drinking problem... yeah, Raj, but anyone who actually reads her columns has already figured that out. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-04 15:35 |
| #27 What do expect from people who thinks that a close win is actually a win. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-04 15:34 |
| #26 I hear MoDo has a drinking problem... |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-08-04 15:10 |
| #25 Silentbrick, that's actually a good idea about investigating reporters. I do like that. Maybe that would curb some of the awful spin or fabrication of stories that are out there. |
| Posted by: Jan 2005-08-04 14:35 |
| #24 So the difference is Roberts adopted a latin American or two while Ruth Bader Ginsberg hired them for maids (w/o paying social security). I can see why the Times is so concerned about Roberts obvious pedophilia..... |
| Posted by: Slineper Unaving2613 2005-08-04 14:32 |
| #23 I really think it's time that reporters get investigated and treated as they treat other people. I'm sure there's all sorts of dirt to dig up on them and when they whine, we'll just say it's part of the standard background check for traitors...err..reporters. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2005-08-04 14:27 |
| #22 By the way: (1) If this is true it amounts to a concession that the only way to attack Roberts is by going personal. Looking at Judge Roberts' resume, that's no surprise. (2) Like any other group of people, federal judges tend to close ranks when one of them is attacked. If this story is true, look for the NYT (Motto: "Our stories are inspired by actual events") to slip on a few legal banana peels in the near future. ("And so the Court in its discretion orders this defamation case by Lt. Smith against Mr. Sulzberger to be transferred to Fort Bragg for trial on the merits.") |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-08-04 14:09 |
| #21 My, my! Such mean spirited hate speech! Manolo, have the limo brought around. I think I'll head for the Hamptons early this weekend as I feel a vainglorious case of the vapors coming on... |
| Posted by: Pinchy 2005-08-04 14:02 |
| #20 I believe the NYT has repeatedly stated that laws do not apply to reporters. Yeah, call Judy Miller in prison. See what she thinks of that policy... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-08-04 13:58 |
| #19 "...they hate Bush so much they can't stand the thought of [insert anything, anything at all here]..." Yes. Isn't it great? The great Sulzberger Scion, a pluperfect fool who had his entire privileged world handed to him on a silver platter, working desperately to squander the lot, is apoplectic. Works for me. Pop a vein or three, there, Arty. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-04 13:56 |
| #18 The depth of their depravity never cease to amaze me. Knowing that they can't leagally "look into" any adoption records, I fail to see what they will review. Sounds like the Neoliberals have fishing partners in the NYT. I am betting the children are the result of a laison betwen Karl Rove and Lucy Rameriz. Because Karl refused to support his love children, Lucy was forced to put them up for adoption. She only did this because Roberts offered her mucho deniro and didn't want to get messed up in any laws (Lawyers are famous for this). I hear Dan Rather will run a segment in 60 minutes this Sunday and provide the docmuents. These documents came from an un-impeachable source. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-08-04 13:51 |
| #17 A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions records are part of the paper's "standard background check." I call Bullshit! This isn't 'standard' just digging for dirt (a NYSlimes Specialty!) Did the NYT investigate Chelsea's birth? Did they require a paternaty test to determine if Hillary is really the mother? The NYT is simply digging for slime because they hate Bush so much they can't stand the thought of him appointing someone (anyone) to the Supreme Court. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-08-04 13:49 |
| #16 They looked kinda "shifty" to me... Like Paul Krugman.... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-08-04 13:43 |
| #15 So I assume this means the NYSlimes will continue to print (front page) that Kenyan's offer of goats and cows for Chelsea's hand in marriage? Nah, I didn't think so. |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-04 13:41 |
| #14 Looking to see if Roberts bought the children off the black market after their parents were killed by right wing death squads backed by Regean with guns supplied by Ollie North. Or he had to buy his wife children because he's really gay and needed cover. Or he bought them for his Federalist pedofile club meetings, etc. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-08-04 13:37 |
| #13 white children from South America. Boys from Brazil? |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-04 13:35 |
| #12 I wonder if they plan on trying to find the birth mothers and then spin the story that the children are being denied thier cultural inheritance. They can then spin Jodge Roberts as a racist and/or cultural imperialist. |
| Posted by: canaveraldan 2005-08-04 13:33 |
| #11 So, is the NYT planning to violate the law to get in there? I believe the NYT has repeatedly stated that laws do not apply to reporters. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-04 13:24 |
| #10 Well, we can't all be born into the Sulzberger family. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-08-04 13:22 |
| #9 Yeah. "Manchurian Candidate". I'm thinking that too... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-08-04 13:19 |
| #8 Both children were adopted from Latin America. Lil' Jack. An al-Qaeda operative if I ever saw one... They are finding new and subversive ways to get into the country... Imagine, pose as an infant, get adopted, and you are in... Imagine your luck to be adopted by a prominent attorney who ends up a judge... Wow! Then your adoptive father gets on the Supreme Court...  |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-08-04 13:18 |
| #7 In most places, adoption records are confidential by statute. (F'instance, I, the adoptee, and the only person legally entitled to access my adoption case file.) So, is the NYT planning to violate the law to get in there? |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-08-04 13:16 |
| #6 They were fishing for evidence of wrong-doing. The NYT is slime. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-04 13:15 |
| #5 it was already public knowledge that they were adopted. What would you find adoption records? Hmm..good question. But the NYT is such scum that you wonder if they aren't going to go locate the biological parents and see if they can make a circus show out of them. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-04 13:13 |
| #4 Well, if they weren't planning on telling them they were adopted, then they will have to at some point now. The kids will undoubtable be interested in how their father ended up on the USSC and look stuff up sometime. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-08-04 13:02 |
| #3 If the WaPo "Style" section can mock the outfits of the kids, I'm sure the NYT can beat that! For dispicability, I mean. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-08-04 12:58 |
| #2 I dunno. They looked kinda "shifty" to me... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-08-04 12:19 |
| #1 What do they expect to find? Seriously? |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-08-04 12:17 |