August 04, 2005
FORGET NANNIES, GO AFTER THE KIDS:
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN (Drudge Report, 8/04/05)
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. [...]
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?”
They better hope they find dirt. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 4, 2005 07:53 PM
Hmmm, two blond kids adopted from "Latin America." What can the Times possibly make out of that.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 4, 2005 08:15 PMYes and the boy was particularly obstreperous during the televised announcement, as if he might go into a murderous rage.
Posted by: h-man at August 4, 2005 08:29 PMThis is so out of bounds that it is either false or definitive proof of how far the MSM has fallen.
Posted by: AWW at August 4, 2005 08:49 PMI vote for "definitive proof."
Posted by: Mike Morley at August 4, 2005 09:13 PMUnless it turns out they bought the kids illegally, in which case it's just another notch in the gunstock when he withdraws...
Posted by: oj at August 4, 2005 09:15 PMthe ny times has already admitted they are doing it.
Posted by: cjm at August 4, 2005 09:46 PMWell, at least they didn't take the suggestion of the posters over at the Daily Kos' site, and investigate Jack to determine if he was gay.
Posted by: John at August 4, 2005 10:28 PMWasn't it the NY Slimes that wanted to know if Judge Roberts would uphold previous Supreme Court decisions to protect every American's right to privacy?
Isn't this a delicious irony!
Posted by: obc at August 4, 2005 10:34 PMThe right to privacy is exclusively concerned with things that happen in public.
The freedom of the press protects the press' right to ferret out our every secret.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 5, 2005 01:35 AMDavid - you speak as if there really IS a right to privacy in the Constitution. Which paragraph is it in? I must have missed it, or maybe the pages got stuck together when I ate my jelly sandwich.
Posted by: obc at August 5, 2005 09:52 AMOBC: I don't even think that there's a right to freedom of the press in the Constitution.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 6, 2005 12:51 PM