It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NYT Plans Investigation into the Adoption of Roberts' Children (moved from ATSNN)

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 11:01 AM
In an exclusive scoop, Drudge Report has identified that the New York Times is planning an investigation into the adoption of Supreme Court Appointee John Roberts' two children from Latin America. Little information is known at this time but the move appears to be met with some skeptecism in Washington. Stay tuned to discover how events surrounding this investigation unfold.
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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It will be interesting to find if this is simply comprehensive investigative reporting or muckraking at its worst. I will be quite interested to find if there is any hint of controversy surrounding this vanilla nominee. I initially expected that his lack of background would send him sailing through confirmation hearings, but perhaps there is more to Mr. Nobody than we expected.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by chaosrain]

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 11:50 AM
Give me a break!
Is there nothing that the Liberal left-wing media won't stoop to? Certain things should be OFF LIMITS. I know I know they say that the public has a right to know since he is a public figure. In my opinion the New York Times is worse than The National Enquirer. The Enquirer trys to make us believe trash, the NYT tries to pass off trash as the truth.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:14 PM
Well now...

This is a new low for the formerly classy "Grey Lady" isn't it?

The public should demand to know the reasoning behind this investigation.

Nothing spells classless like pulling toddlers into a political battle.

If Roberts would be so deadly to the country, and if his record proves that he is unfit for the position, THEN USE HIS RECORD TO PROVE HIM UNFIT.

Not his kids.

It's such a shame... the Times could be so much better.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:20 PM

A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's "standard background check."

They are part of the standard background check.

It's just a fluff story to take away from the bigger picture.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:28 PM
Maybe the headline should be
"Reactionary Shill reports on non-event"

Wouldn't it be better to wait until the NYT actually does anything alleged before everyone explodes with 'Liberal Media Scum!!!11!!" (one's included!!1!)

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 01:29 PM
Hey this is new for me I had no clue the children are adopted, well I will like to know everthing about it.

After all Mr. Roberts is going to be sitting in the highest court of the country and dealing with decisions that will affect me and any other American lifes.

I want to know everything including his favorite food.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 02:31 PM

After all Mr. Roberts is going to be sitting in the highest court of the country and dealing with decisions that will affect me and any other American lifes.

That's right!

And I believe this man's legal record should be scrutinized and it should be decided if he belongs on the Supreme Court or not.

Yes, legal record. He is going for Supreme Court right?

If you're a baseball player, I want to see your hitting stats. If you're a doctor, I want to see your certificates. If you're flying my plane, show me your pilot's license.

He's trying for the Court. His legal records should be opened for review. I fail to see what importance is held by how/where/when/why he adopted children.

I fear that this is going to be as stupid as chatting about orange tans and bike spills were in the 2004 election. When you run out of issues to talk about, take a swipe at the guy's personal life, right?

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 02:35 PM
I have no problem with any information that you want to know about Mr. Roberts including his favorite food. He is an adult and made an informed descision to accept the nomination. What I have a problem with is the information that might be divulged about the children. They on the other hand had nothing to do with the descision but depending on the information that is uncovered may have to face the consequences. I am speaking from experience here. I was adopted by the man that I grew up with knowing as my father forty years ago. I didn't find out that I was adopted until I was twenty-one. Lets just say that my biological father did a few things that were not considered on the up and up. If the information that I was his son had been common knowledge when I was younger my life would have probably been a living hell.
We do not know anything about where Mr. Robert's adopted children and their biological parents. We do not need to know anything about them. It may be said that the New York Times will be discreet about the information that it chooses to use, but with their track record lately I have no confidence that they know what the word discreet means. I an confident that if they find anything no matter how small that may discredit Mr. Roberts they will not hesitate to publish it or to leak it to someone else.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 02:41 PM
The only thing that should be ascertained (and I'm sure it already has been by the FBI, as he's gone through confirmation just a couple years ago) is the legality of the adoptions. Why the NYT feels it needs to look further into it is beyond me, sounds like a fishing expedition to me to find something to smear him and his family with.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 02:47 PM
Mr. Roberts position is for life, and is already common knowledge that he had adopted children so I don't see any damage in there.

Also if he knows that is something illegal or damaging about the children's past that can hurt the children or his position as a judge he should not has taken the position in favor of the welfare of the children.

If he is clean he has nothing to fear.

But in the other hand what is more important be a supreme court judge or his personal private life and the people involve in it.

I am an American tax payer an I demand to know every detail of a man that will be aproving laws that will impact me, my family and every American in this country.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:11 PM

If he is clean he has nothing to fear.

Scary... this is the same argument used by people that want to tap our phones, search our cars, and videotape our every move.

How very very interesting to hear that coming from someone who usually opposes such things.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:15 PM
We are going to allow the New York Times to determine if someone is "clean" or not?
If he is "clean" he has nothing to fear? This is the same outfit that hired Jayson Blair their accuracy leaves a bit to be desired.
I thought that background checks were supposed to be done by the FBI or the Justice department. When I obtained my security clearence it was the FBI who did my background check not the New York Times. The last time I checked the goal of a newspaper was to sell newspapers. I also am a taxpayer and I agree that Mr. Roberts should be thoroughly "checked out".
Yes. I want to know his beliefs and views, but anything other than the legality of his children's adoption should be strictly off limits.
One thing that I find interesting is the fact that the media provides us with information that we use to make major descisions that affect our lives, but no one does "background checks" on the people who determine what that information is and how it is presented.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:36 PM

Scary... this is the same argument used by people that want to tap our phones, search our cars, and videotape our every move.

How very very interesting to hear that coming from someone who usually opposes such things.

Sorry to take away your moment of Glory but you see I am using the same logic that our government is trying to use on us and our civil rights.

Mr. Robert's is not you average joe that works and live in your neck of the woods he is part of the same elite that is underminding our civil liberties in the name of safeguading our country and he is not appliying for the job at the seven day store down the road.

I bet he has nothing to fear at all.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:42 PM
My moment of glory? No glory here.

My statement was, and remains, that when choosing someone for a job we should focus on their performance and their past experience.

Not where their family comes from.

Only those desperately grasping straws will resort to tactics like that.

For proof of that, as I mentioned above, you can refer to the 2004 election where people focused more time on who used a bottle tanner and who fell off a bicycle than on issues.

No gloryseeking. Just calling them as I see them.

I for one want to hear about Roberts' legal opinions, not his children.

[edit on 8-4-2005 by Djarums]

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:56 PM
Well what you got on his previous performance? Its a nice thread in PTS that covers all that, after all he has been loyal to the Republican party all the way.

And occurs let's not forget that he has been a circuit court judge for only 2 years.

He has more background on the deeds for the Republican party that he has in its job.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 04:19 PM

The concerns in your last post are what the New York Times needs to be addressing with their investigation. That is fair game for anyone in public office. Somehow I think that they tried it and didn't find anything that they could use and are now grasping at straws. I don't like the Democrats but to be honest I would have the same opinion if it was a Democrat nominated for this post.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 06:49 PM
These two kids are from Latin America?

They aren't what I would picture if someone said Roberts had adopted two Latin American children.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 07:04 PM
And somewhere, John McCain is secretly laughing right now. Having lost the 2000 the South Carolina primaries, because Bush and Rove spread rumors and lies about his adopted own child.

Karma's rough, ain't it?

For the record, I think it's unpleasent, and I'd like the New York imes to stop. But, they don't listen to me.

Side note: Anybody have an info on John "Souter" Roberts donating his time to defend gay rights? It was on Drudge, but I don't subscribe to the LA Times.

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:39 PM
Well, if they find nothing, no harm done. If they find something potentially damaging, then they've done a good service, whether it matters or not. In theory, it could prove to be something along the lines of hiring and paying an illegal immigrant to do your house work, except paying the parents under the counter for their kids. We just don't know.

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:47 PM
Mr Roberts was appointed, not his children. It is fine to conduct a standard background check and to ascertain that the children were adopted legally. Other than that, it is a mute point to go after the children. Folks need to act like adults and quit trying to hit below the belt to make their points. No person is perfect and if they want to find dirt on Roberts, go for it, just leave the children out of it.

new topics

top topics


log in