Posted on 08/04/2005 8:48:41 AM PDT by kennedy
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN
**Exclusive**
The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES' newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Roberts’ 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 are part of the paper's "standard background check."
Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldn’t 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 Josie’s and Jack’s mother had them wear at the announcement ceremony.
One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES’ plans declared: “Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits. The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.”
One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. “This can’t possibly be true?”
Developing...
They're trying to find out 1) how they adopted 2 white children and 2) how they adopted 2 white children from Latin America.
At least someone in the NYT's newsroom was uncomfortable with this, as evidenced by the leak to Drudge.
I wonder if the Times will try to link the fact that Roberts has adopted children with the abortion issue (what am I saying, of course they will).
Cute little blonde kids from South America, I can see the headline already:
Judge Roberts raising Nazi children.
I hate the NY Times.
First we find out that President Bush is exercising, now we hear that his Supreme Court nominee has adopted children! IS THERE NO END TO THESE OUTRAGES!! (sarc)
Strange, I don't recall a "standard background check" on the births and children of demwits, such as Clinton, Kerry, Teddy, etc.
Just when you think things cant get lower, they do. Yes, it probably can get lower than this.
My guess would be that, in their black little hearts, they are trying to find some "irregularity" in the adoptions. This really is beyond despicable.
I only regret that children have be used to argue the creditbility case against the NYT in the court of public opinion
You would think these goofballs would learn, but hate and fear drives one to do awful things.
"and exactly what is the nytimes trying to find? this is total crap."
I can hear the warped "logic" now... "from Latin American, hmmm? They certainly don't LOOK Latin American. Bet there's a Nazi fugitive in the woodpile somewhere."
Then, segue into the usual "Bush is a Nazi" mantra.
What was wrong with the clothes, I thought they were such great outfits.
I would bet they are looking into whether the adoption agency is one that has had trouble and then smear him with that...
or, they want to suggest he bought his children. It will also rile up the lefties. They are generally against international adoption as well as the Unicef people.
I am going out on a limb here. NY Times circulation will further decline 25%
They are gonna find Mr. Roberts misspelled his wife's mother's maiden name on the adaption papers, and say he committed perjury and is unfit.
...and we have to put up with this nonsense for another month...
the times begins in earnest the smear campaign for the dems/stealth-commies...
This and the pro-bono stuff on the same day. The left is really hammering Roberts today.
This is an outrage. I am the father of two fantastic adopted little girls (4 and 1, both stateside). This is an invasion not only of the children's legitimate privacy interest, but also of the birthmothers'.
What can this possibly have to do with Roberts' suitability as a SCJ? The only thing I can think of, is that the Times wants to cause a chilling effect on future conservative nominees. The libs will not be investigated in this manner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.