Liberals as lower life forms...

[DKW 86 7,451]

Link

Some have also focused on other aspects of his life. On Thursday, the online Drudge Report revealed that a New York Times reporter had made inquiries about the Roberts children, Josephine and Jack, ages 5 and 4. The NYT reporters verified that they were looking into the adoptions and that the review was ongoing and that the rumor is the NYT was looking into getting their lawyers to try and break the sealed documents.

According to recent news reports, the judge and his wife, Jane, wed in 1996 when both were 41 and adopted the children in 2000.

On Friday, The Times said no one had ordered an investigation of the adoptions, calling the inquiry part of a routine effort to "report extensively on the life and career" of a nominee for high office.

"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," said Times spokesman Toby Usnik. "We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions." Why did you even look into such a private matter anyway?

The newspaper denied assertions by conservative bloggers that it consulted lawyers about trying to unseal the adoption records. Usnik said the paper dropped the matter after learning that the records were sealed. Because in the past they were pursuing getting records unsealed.

Hutchison called the newspaper's actions "reprehensible," saying the inquiry crossed the "fine line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy."

The National Council for Adoption also denounced the inquiry, saying the adoptions have no bearing on the judge's suitability to serve

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

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."

Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: "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."

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?”

I had forgotten this one. It is how Obama got elected.

In Illinois, the GOP Senate candidate Jack Ryan and his ex-wife Jeri, had the records of their divorce child-custody sealed. The Chicago Tribune, among others, got the judge in California to order them unsealed.

There were accusations and counter accusations which I don’t feel are necessary to note here, but these severely damaged his campaign where he was forced out (in effect, giving the Senate seat to Obama). Whether the accusations were true or not, the damage was done not to just a political campaign, but mostly to the Ryans’ son.

So don’t assume that adoption papers are safe, if liberals and ‘journalists’ decide to go after them. They will either force the papers to be unsealed, or some clerk will be paid off to make copies of them (the ‘confidential source’).

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=983

[Tigermike 3,066]

David, I would have to agree with the dems, it's very important to investigate every aspect of a prospective Supreme Court justice's life. After all, he may threaten the right to privacy!