"Constitutional Democracy"

I haven't read about the NYTimes attempting to unseal adoption records. What is your source?

This came from Captains Quarters, which is Yes, a right wing blog but probably the most accurate blog either right or left.....but it actually came from the Drudge Report.......you will note that the NYTimes editor started a swift CYA move that should ensure that the story is never published.

The Gray Lady Turns Into The National Enquirer

Note: This originally appeared as an update on my post about Jon Corzine and the article regarding the loan to his ex-girlfriend. I'm posting it separately instead.

Speaking of news priorities, now we know why the Paper of Record has failed to report on Air America's misappropriation of city grant monies earmarked for poor kids and Alzheimer's patients. Drudge reports that the Times would rather try to dig up dirt on the adopted children of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts:

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. ...

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

I didn't realize that Supreme Court appointees had to pass a New York Times "standard background check". Silly me. I thought that the Times' job was to report news, not dig up personal dirt about the adoption of minors by political figures.

Addendum: I predict that nothing will come of this, and the Times will have nothing to report -- allowing them to claim that Drudge got the scoop wrong. It could also be that Drudge has a bad source; it happens. (Look at Walter Pincus' and Nicholas Krystof's source for the Niger report.) Whatever the reason, now that Drudge has published this claim, no one will ever see a Times report detailing the mechanics of the Roberts' adoptions. This kind of muckraking simply has to fly under the radar until something scandalous pops out -- otherwise the understandable public outrage into such an invasion of the children's privacy winds up burying any sensational claims.

UPDATE: CQ reader Creature of Habit sent an e-mail complaining about this development to the Times, which responded with lightning speed:

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."

i don't really care why or how roberts adopted. as long as it was legal and they didn't adopt for purient reasons, i'm just glad that the kids found a home.

if the story came from drudge, i'd have to take it with, mmmm..., a pound of salt. preferably kosher rock.

i haven't looked much into the air america thing. but as i understand it, the problem is not with air america or the funds to them, but in another business deal engaged in by one of their early investors.

ya know that air america is starting to be taken seriously when the slime squad takes an interest.

same with moveon.

This is too funny.
The same person that is one of the main ranters and ravers about how bad the "right-wing" radio is and how it should not be taken seriously posts this.

Does that mean that you now take Rush and Sean Hannity and others on the right seriously?
Are you now saying that they are legitimate organizations?

yes. they are all legit outlets.

taken seriously in what they say? eehhh, not so sure 'bout that. i don't really care for talk radio, period.

i find randi rhodes to be equally as obnoxious as the other two boneheads.

but, unlike some around here, i feel like liberals have the same right to be inane in public as conservatives.

but i have always thought al franken is hysterical. just funny as hell.