NY times to go after robers adoption records

[Hell's Bells]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jra.htm

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN

**Exclusive**

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 the status of 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 adoption papers 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 Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony.

One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES action 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...

[Grizlaw]

It's easy to have a kneejerk angry reaction to something like this ("They're picking on his CHILDREN, how can they do that! Oh, the outrage!! His CHILDREN, for chrissakes!")

However, once you get past this initial response, ask yourself these questions:

1. If his children *were* adopted illegally, then don't you think that fact should be relevant to his confirmation to this country's highest court? and

2. Honestly -- do you think his children care? Or do you think he cares, for that matter?

His whole life is under a microscope right now, as it should be. This is small potatoes.

[Hell's Bells]

It's easy to have a kneejerk angry reaction to something like this ("They're picking on his CHILDREN, how can they do that! Oh, the outrage!! His CHILDREN, for chrissakes!")

However, once you get past this initial response, ask yourself these questions:

1. If his children *were* adopted illegally, then don't you think that fact should be relevant to his confirmation to this country's highest court? and

2. Honestly -- do you think his children care? Or do you think he cares, for that matter?

His whole life is under a microscope right now, as it should be. This is small potatoes.

my beef with this is that it should be done by a congressional comittee, not the times. I wonder if they even can have access to adoption information

[SonomaCat]

Why shouldn't the press do investigative reporting on stories relating to important national issues?

If you read the Drudge report regularly, you must certainly agree with at least that basic concept.

[mslacat]

It's easy to have a kneejerk angry reaction to something like this ("They're picking on his CHILDREN, how can they do that! Oh, the outrage!! His CHILDREN, for chrissakes!")

However, once you get past this initial response, ask yourself these questions:

1. If his children *were* adopted illegally, then don't you think that fact should be relevant to his confirmation to this country's highest court? and

2. Honestly -- do you think his children care? Or do you think he cares, for that matter?

His whole life is under a microscope right now, as it should be. This is small potatoes.

my beef with this is that it should be done by a congressional comittee, not the times. I wonder if they even can have access to adoption information

I am sorry but if we rely on polititions to to get to the truth we are going to find ourselves in wars we had no reason to be in!!

[Grizlaw]

my beef with this is that it should be done by a congressional comittee, not the times. I wonder if they even can have access to adoption information

Sure they can; under FOIA, you or I could probably get the same information too, if we were interested and knew where to submit the request.

I also agree with BAC's point, and will add the following question: if they shouldn't be reporting about this, then what *should* the Times be reporting about Roberts? The question of whether he violated any law when he adopted his kids is relevant information; why should they not write about it?

Roberts is a public figure now, and while one would hope the press will be fair and civil, he is not entitled to the same level of privacy that he enjoyed a couple months ago. Assuming he gets confirmed, he's going to have to deal with this for the rest of his life.

[grizbeer]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jra.htm

Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony.

How is critiquing his wife clothing style choice for her children a national security issue?

[briannell]

agree with grizbeer. unless the kids are known criminals, leave them alone. as for poor fashion sense, well, they may critique her, but we've all been known to have our own moments of fashion shame,but really not necessary to investigate this.

-rebecca

[SonomaCat]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jra.htm

Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony.

How is critiquing his wife clothing style choice for her children a national security issue?

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that any style section of any newspaper has ever dealt with issues of any significance to anyone of importance.

That's kind of a tangental issue, though.

[Hell's Bells]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jra.htm

Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony.

How is critiquing his wife clothing style choice for her children a national security issue?

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that any style section of any newspaper has ever dealt with issues of any significance to anyone of importance.

That's kind of a tangental issue, though.

theres only one reason why the NY times would be bringing this up and it makes me sick. if W were a dem they would be praising roberts for "rescuing kids from bad situations"

[briannell]

just realized I'm starting to agree too much with Griz alumni, someone please stop me before I'm completely warped and move over to the dark side

I must keep myself from thinking grizzly thoughts, and becoming corrupt in both mind and spirit. time to weigh grad school options, if i go to UM i'll be ruined for life
-rebecca

[SonomaCat]

It doesn't look like the NYT is "bringing this up." Drudge is. It sounds like the NYT was just doing background research (and probably pulled virtually every public record available on this guy who could soon be one of the most powerful people in America) to make sure no red flags came up. That's called journalism, and for a nominee of this kind of position, I'm glad the press is reviewing the public records on our behalf (regardless of which party nominates the guy).

Now if they fabricated a story, that's different, but doing research of public records is not a big deal ... unless you are a conservative website operator who knows that your readers have been conditioned to respond favorably (with hits and links on other websites) to negative stories about the NYT.

All of this being said, I haven't read anything about Roberts that makes my too uncomfortable, and I'm hoping that he sails through the confirmation hearing without any problem. I hope that nothing negative does turn up about him. But if he does have some skeletons out there that bring into question his ability to do the job well, then I absolutely want to know about them.

[mquast53000]

Why does the NYT have to let all of America know that they are checking the adoption records? Simply by telling their readership that they are checking this information out makes a person suspicious even if there is not reason to be. They have planted a seed of mistrust, so there basically has been damage done despite the strong possibility that there is no wrongdoing what so ever.
Maybe this is the new way that the NYT is going to write articles, they are going to pre-report their stories.

[SonomaCat]

Why does the NYT have to let all of America know that they are checking the adoption records? Simply by telling their readership that they are checking this information out makes a person suspicious even if there is not reason to be. They have planted a seed of mistrust, so there basically has been damage done despite the strong possibility that there is no wrongdoing what so ever.
Maybe this is the new way that the NYT is going to write articles, they are going to pre-report their stories.

The NYT didn't release that info -- it looks like it was "leaked' by someone to Drudge (probably not by someone who is decision-maker at the paper or perhaps not even with the paper) so he could make an issue out of nothing. The NYT clarified that they were merely doing a standard background check when asked about the leaked info.

See how easy it is to get people riled up against a newspaper (or anybody or anything) by reporting a non-story in a sensational manner (note the throw-in reference to the Wapo style article mention that got the attention of a few people, even though it had nothing to do with the NYT -- suggesting some sort of liberal conspiracy amongst the papers)? That's how Drudge stays in business.

[Grizlaw]

theres only one reason why the NY times would be bringing this up and it makes me sick. if W were a dem they would be praising roberts for "rescuing kids from bad situations"

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

Hells, there is one significant thing that you have left unsaid here. I have not heard you say that the issue of whether or not he illegally adopted his children is immaterial to the issue of his confirmation to the Court. True or false?

If you agree that the issue is important to the confirmation hearing, then I really don't see how you can argue that the NYT should not report on it -- unless, of course, you're just looking for a reason to smear the NYT.

[mquast53000]

Pre-report, leaked or anything else that you want to call it… As long as it is anti-Bush the NYT will have some involvement in it.

[SonomaCat]

Pre-report, leaked or anything else that you want to call it… As long as it is anti-Bush the NYT will have some involvement in it.

That's the attitude that Drudge (and the rest of the right-wing media) is hoping that the readers will have, or else the stuff thrown against the wall they peddle will never stick.

It's classical conditioning. Ring the bell and watch the dog drool.

I haven't seen this story on any other news source, so it's pretty obvious that the NYT wasn't releasing this themselves -- they have absolutely no incentive to do so (unless they wanted to intentionally ruin the credibility by disclosing every single rathole their reporters go down in doing background research for stories, which wouldn't make much sense).

The NYT isn't really in the business of leaking info directly to Drudge.com. They don't give away their scoops, and they certainly don't pass along info that could be used to make them look bad to the right-wing choir.

[Hell's Bells]

theres only one reason why the NY times would be bringing this up and it makes me sick. if W were a dem they would be praising roberts for "rescuing kids from bad situations"

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

Hells, there is one significant thing that you have left unsaid here. I have not heard you say that the issue of whether or not he illegally adopted his children is immaterial to the issue of his confirmation to the Court. True or false?

If you agree that the issue is important to the confirmation hearing, then I really don't see how you can argue that the NYT should not report on it -- unless, of course, you're just looking for a reason to smear the NYT.

1) it is material
2) it should be covered by the investigation that is going on before the full senate gets a chance to vote on him
3) i dont need to smear the nyt. their articles do all the talking i just call it how i see it...

[Grizlaw]

1) it is material
2) it should be covered by the investigation that is going on before the full senate gets a chance to vote on him
3) i dont need to smear the nyt. their articles do all the talking i just call it how i see it...

Ok, fine. So the NYT should not report on matters that are material to the Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee?

[Hell's Bells]

1) it is material
2) it should be covered by the investigation that is going on before the full senate gets a chance to vote on him
3) i dont need to smear the nyt. their articles do all the talking i just call it how i see it...

Ok, fine. So the NYT should not report on matters that are material to the Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee?

they have the right to do so, i for one also have a voice and can react to how i know they are going to be reporting on said nominee.

besides, GL, we all know that this is nothing but a fishing expedation, despite the fact that roberts is one of the most qualified nominees.