NY times to go after robers adoption records

[SonomaCat]

3) i dont need to smear the nyt. their articles do all the talking i just call it how i see it...

I'm guessing that you aren't exactly an avid reader of the NYT. If my assumption is correct, then is it also safe to assume that your perceptions of the NYT are almost exclusively molded by what people on TV, the radio, and in conservative websites tell you about the NYT?

[Grizlaw]

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.

That's fine, but you're reacting to a story that has not even been written yet. At least you've admitted that your view is largely a product of your pre-conceived notions about the Times; that's a start.

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.

Sure it is. And you know what? It *should* be a fishing expedition!

I've already said on this board that, so far, I like Roberts as a candidate for the Court. He certainly is qualified, and I have not yet seen any reason to be alarmed about his ability to do the job.

However, we are not ordering a pizza here; we are talking about a potential Supreme Court justice. If Roberts is confirmed, he is likely to be on the Court for the next 20 years, possibly longer. Yes, the Senate Democrats are going to overturn every stone, and they are going to open every closet to see if it contains a skeleton. The press is going to do the same, as they should.

Yes, it's probably true that Roberts legally adopted his children, but if he did do anything illegal in that or any aspect of his life, I certainly want to know about it.

[Ponycat]

I do read the NY Times regularly and the OPINION PAGE is very liberal/anti-Bush/anti-conservative. THe rest is fine, but if there is a tilt left or right its certainly left.

As for the adoption thing, I guess I don't see the big deal, but I can already see it getting spinned into some sore of Pro-life debate. It drives me crazy that with all the decisions/opinions that Roberts has or will make all that anyone is ever going to hear about is Abortion.

Oops maybe I just did the thing that drives me crazy.

[Grizlaw]

As for the adoption thing, I guess I don't see the big deal, but I can already see it getting spinned into some sore of Pro-life debate.

Hmm..I guess that argument could be made; I really don't see that as the issue, though. If someone wants to make that argument, they'll have to argue that any nominee who has adopted a child (illegally or otherwise) should be disqualified because of bias on the abortion issue; I doubt anyone would make that argument.

To me, the adoption issue is important simply because one who swears to uphold the rule of law and sits on the highest court of this country should be someone who obeys the rule of law themselves.

I would liken it to the nominee that Bush put up for the Tax Court a couple years ago, where the nomination had to be withdrawn because it came out during his confirmation hearings that the nominee himself had taken some fairly aggressive / borderline fraudulent positions on some of his tax returns. The dollar amounts at stake were not huge, but the bottom line is that you can't have a Tax Court judge who cheats on his own taxes.

[Ponycat]

I agree, if its all about legalities and illegalities, Dig away.