Great...now the Democrat Paper of Record decides to investigate a nominees children.

[dude1394]

You know I thought that sooner or later the democrat party would back away from reprehension but they continue to surprise me.

So now the NYSlimes decides that they will try to get lawyers to try and unseal the adoption records of John Roberts looking for dirt. Just how disgusting can the official newspaper of the democrat party sink to.

I just don't think anymore that there is a limit.

[capitalcity]

As long as there are bird cages to be lined... the NYTIMES will serve a purpose.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
You know I thought that sooner or later the democrat party would back away from reprehension but they continue to surprise me.

So now the NYSlimes decides that they will try to get lawyers to try and unseal the adoption records of John Roberts looking for dirt. Just how disgusting can the official newspaper of the democrat party sink to.

I just don't think anymore that there is a limit.

what are you talking about? you gave no link...

[capitalcity]

drudge... aka required reading

[Mavdog]

oh, the sludge report?

to quote the Bard, "much ado about nothing"....

before the vetting is done, his maid, his nanny and even the yardman will be looked at. it's part and parcel of being a nominee.

[dude1394]

Brit Hume stated that he had personally talked to reporters who said that they were asked to help the NYTimes break the sealed adoption papers.

Also the NYTimes has acknowledged that their reporters have made inquiries into the adoption of Roberts children.

Here is a letter that you also can get.

UPDATE: Readers who wrote to the Times got back the following response:

Dear Reader,

Thanks for writing to us.

While the public editor does not usually get involved in pre-publication matters, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts’s children. He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this issue.

In addition, a senior editor at the paper wrote, “In the case of Judge Roberts’s family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions.”

Sincerely,
Joe Plambeck
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

Note: The public editor’s opinions are his own and do not represent those of The New York Times

-- PoliPundit

Until Brit Hume was so incensed I thought it was much ado about nothing...now I don't think so. What possible reason could the nytimes have for asking about the adoption of roberts children. None.

[dude1394]

More from cq and brit

captain

UPDATE II: Brit Hume reports at his Fox blog that the Times reporters wanted to look into the sealed adoption records, and that they had no particular reason for asking:

The New York Times has been asking lawyers who specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' two adopted children.

There is no indication The Times had any evidence there was anything improper in the family's adoption of five-year-old Josie and four-year-old Jack, both born in Latin America. Sources familiar with the matter told FOX News that at least one lawyer turned the Times down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.

Well, we have anonymous sourcing, which doesn't make for a definitive statement. I'd prefer that the attorneys who heard this come forward and say exactly who did the asking. If the Times has asked attorneys to find a legal way to do something unethical and downright despicable, then we should hear who at the Times has made those calls.

Brit's blog

Why Did They Look Into It?
Thursday, August 04, 2005
By Brit Hume

Why Did They Look Into It?
August 04, 2005

The New York Times (search) has been asking lawyers who specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' (search) two adopted children.

There is no indication The Times had any evidence there was anything improper in the family's adoption of five-year-old Josie and four-year-old Jack, both born in Latin America. Sources familiar with the matter told FOX News that at least one lawyer turned the Times down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.

A Times spokesman said the paper was simply asking questions, and that only initial inquiries had been made.

[MavKikiNYC]

Until Brit Hume was so incensed I thought it was much ado about nothing...now I don't think so. What possible reason could the nytimes have for asking about the adoption of roberts children. None.

Seriously......what do you think the nefarious angle is? Assuming the reports of attempts to unseal the adoption are true, what would reporters be trying to expose? I can't figure it out.

[dude1394]

Gosh I hate to even chat about it, but the panel surmised that they were looking for some sort of preferential treatment, moving them to the top of the line or something like that.

[kg_veteran]

oh, the sludge report?

to quote the Bard, "much ado about nothing"....

After all this time, you DO understand how Drudge operates, don't you? He merely provides links to stories published elsewhere. Your stupid little moniker reflects poorly on THOSE publications, not Drudge.

[dude1394]

I think he was first about monica...... another scoop it seems.

[Drbio]

It's yet another ad naseum case of mavdookie attacking a reputable source because he knows it provides factual information which completely uncovers him as the forum fool.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

After all this time, you DO understand how Drudge operates, don't you? He merely provides links to stories published elsewhere. Your stupid little moniker reflects poorly on THOSE publications, not Drudge.

yes, he does regurgitate various stories that can be best described as "the dirt". He's not the only one, there's the enquirer and others who do the same thing. doesn't make it good journalism, nor does it make Drudge anything more than a compiler of the sludge. yet sludge it is....

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
It's yet another ad naseum case of mavdookie attacking a reputable source because he knows it provides factual information which completely uncovers him as the forum fool.

a "reputable source"? as KG pointed out Drudge isn't a source at all. he just searches and publicizes other stories.

talk about being a "forum fool"....yuck yuck yuck. you're wearing the crown proudly.

[Mavdog]

an interesting account of some pro bono work he did. it doesn't mention investigating the adoption or the nanny, but it does make us comfortable he disclosed the neighborhood pool membership (although I hear they don't allow any Dutch to join [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img])
------------------------------------------------------------
Roberts Helped Group on Gay Rights
By JON SARCHE, Associated Press Writer

A decade ago, John Roberts played a valuable role helping attorneys overturn a law that would have allowed discrimination against gays — pro bono work the Supreme Court nominee didn't mention in a questionnaire he filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The revelation could dent his popularity among conservative groups and quell some of the opposition of liberal groups fearful he could help overturn landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a right to an abortion.

An attorney who worked with Roberts cautioned against making guesses about his personal views based on his involvement in the Colorado case, which gay rights advocates consider one of their most important legal victories.

"It may be that John and others didn't see this case as a gay-rights case," said Walter Smith, who was in charge of pro bono work at Roberts' former Washington law firm, Hogan & Hartson.

Smith said Roberts may instead have viewed the case as a broader question, of whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited singling out a particular group of people that wouldn't be protected by an anti-discrimination law.

"I don't think this gives you any clear answers, but I think it's a factor people can and should look at to figure out what this guy is made of and what kind of Supreme Court justice he would make," Smith said.

The case involved Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment approved by Colorado voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts.

Gay rights groups sued, and the law was declared unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.

Roberts' role in the case, disclosed this week by the Los Angeles Times, included helping develop a strategy and firing tough questions at Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice who argued the case, during a mock court session, Smith said.

Dubofsky, who did not return calls Friday, said Roberts helped develop the strategy that the law violated the equal protection clause in the Constitution — and prepared her for tough questions from conservative members of the court. She recalled how Justice Antonin Scalia asked for specific legal citations.

"I had it right there at my fingertips," she told the Times. "Roberts was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue. He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

Dubofsky had never argued before the Supreme Court. Smith said she called his firm and asked specifically for help from Roberts, who argued 39 cases before the court before he was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., in 2003.

Smith said any lawyer at Hogan & Hartson would have had the right to decline to work on any case for moral, religious or other reasons.

"If John had felt that way about this case, given that he is a brilliant lawyer, he would have just said `This isn't my cup of tea' and I would have said `Fine, we'll look for something else that would suit you,'" Smith said.

The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, which helped move the case through the state and federal courts, said Roberts' involvement raised more questions about him than it answered because of his "much more extensive advocacy of positions that we oppose," executive director Kevin Cathcart said.

"This is one more piece that will be added to the puzzle in the vetting of John Roberts' nomination," Cathcart said.

Tom Goldstein, an attorney who teaches Supreme Court litigation at the Stanford and Harvard law schools, said if anything, Roberts' involvement in the case could win over skeptical Democrats.

"It tells you he is not so committed ideologically to conservatism that he would find it impossible to help one side in a case," he said. "I think this tells you that John Roberts at least isn't so aghast at the notion of gay rights that he finds it outside the pale. Beyond that it doesn't tell you much."

The Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, said his support for Roberts' nomination has not diminished. He said he thought liberal groups were trying to undermine conservative support for the nomination.

"It does not make me nervous," Sheldon said. "He wasn't the lead lawyer. They only asked him to play a part where he would be Scalia in a mock trial. So we don't have any hesitations."

Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, said Roberts' involvement was "certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values," but did not prompt new concerns about his nomination, which the group supports.

"That's what lawyers do — represent their firm's clients, whether they agree with what those clients stand for or not," the group said in a statement. "Nothing we've read today alters our belief that Judge Roberts deserves a fair hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and a timely up-or-down confirmation vote in the full Senate."

Roberts did not mention his work on the case in his 82-page response to a Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which included such details as his membership in a neighborhood swimming pool. The committee has scheduled Roberts' confirmation hearing for Sept. 6.