Is That Legal?

This smells to me like the Times' routine "get whatever public documents are available" drill is getting portrayed as something it's not, by the brave opponents of the em ess em. (I don't have any knowledge of whether it's routine at the Times but it's routine at many papers.) I mean, if you're going to mention the adoption in a biography, you'd want the official records so you're not unnecessarily annoying people or getting the details wrong.

I could be wrong, of course, but I would actually be willing to bet on the Times NOT running sleazy stories about the kids'. Of course then Malkin & pals will claim that it was because of their brave stand For The Children.

...or perhaps the german expatriate communities in brazil, argentina, or paraguay...

Let's step back and figure out what's the most likely thing here.

As part of a background check on someone, you review the records of every legal case, criminal and civil, to which the person was a party. These are, for the most part, public records, and they are often available or through subscription databases (such as Lexis-Nexis). Such records can tell you not only the subject and disposition of the case, but can also give you other information--names, addresses, etc.--associated with the individual in question.

An adoption proceeding is a legal proceeding; one must go to court and file papers. Those papers can tell a reporter, at the least, who the Roberts' lawyer was for the proceeding. Probably that's not important, but there might be some connection to something else. A reporter can't know until he or she looks at everything.

So the Times looked at his adoption records. So what? They're undoubtedly looking at everything--financial records, liens, former addresses, driver's license records, vital statistics, and so on. And given that at least a couple of Clinton appointments were blocked because of nanny issues, it's hard to say any more that the children are completely off limits.

I agree with Katherine and Kenneth Fair.

The fact that a Times reporter asked some questions about the adoption certainly doesn't show that Times reporters are a bunch of "slimy slimeballs," as Professor Bainbridge so eloquently puts it. The "slimeball" label makes quite a few assumptions about the Times' motives, and neither Bainbridge nor Drudge provides any reason to think the inquiries were out of bounds or made with bad intent. (Perhaps this is just obvious given the Times' "liberal" bias.)

Drudge notes that a Times "insider" said the inquiries were part of a regular "background check." Drudge also quotes Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, as saying: "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."

Maybe the Times has decided that they must bring down Judge Roberts at any cost, even if it means destroying the lives of his children. Or maybe they just wanted to do some fact-checking for basic, non-controversial reporting on the when's and where's of the adoptions. I have no idea.

But I certainly wouldn't go throwing around "slimeball" accusations based on a hunch.

For the record - I know an awful lot of Argentinians and Brazilians who are orfully pale and who have first names passed down through the family, along the lines of Ian, Patrick, Karl, Francois, or for that matter, an assortment of East Asian names. Latin America doesn't necessarily mean Amerindian/Latino ethnic descent, as many of the South American nations are melting pots. To assume Latin American means "looks like a Mexican" is a little parochial - especially considering there is a wide range of differing appearances among Mexicans. (Conceded: few blondes in Mexico. Not true for the Argies, however).

On the substance of the digging... There is a noticeable "Roberts is Gay" not-quite whispering campaign that the Times really boosted a few weeks back with an oddly laid out feature piece on Roberts. It appears to have started in the blogosphere the second Roberts was nominated - see Kos - and it appears to me that it is aimed at splintering the Republican Senators, interest groups and base. This is a silly idea given that Ken Mehlman runs the RNC, and even Rick Santorum would probably horsetrade on a couple left/gay policy issues if it meant landing a reliable textualist and otherwise conservatively inclined, brilliant, persuasive judge on the Court.

Motives do matter. Given the backdrop of that whispering campaign, I'm not inclined to be charitable toward the Times' motives here.

Odds are, the Times will get nothing out of the story, or a heartwarming story about the travails of adoption for older parents. Even that might be worth a feature story.

The most interesting thing they may find out is that Roberts used an adoption agency that openly discriminates on the basis of race and/or religion. Many of them do. Less likely, but certainly newsworthy if it turns out to be the case, is the possibility that the adoptions were not entirely legal under either U.S. or the children's nations laws. If nominees can be sunk for hiring illegal alien nannies, wouldn't it be relevant if the have violated the laws of this nation to adopt illegal alien children?

"This is a silly idea given that Ken Mehlman runs the RNC"

And your point is? Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but are you saying he's gay? I don't think Mehlman is "out". And you were saying about whispering campaigns?

Or from the Swiss in Rio.
Or from the Dutch in Northeastern Brazil, especially the very poor Backlands.
Or from the Italians in Brazil and Argentina.
Or from the Eastern Europeans (Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukrainians) all over.

Or from, well, just about any other ethnicity you can think of. Poor bastards, one hundred years ago, you bought a ticket to go to "America" and arrived in Rio instead of NY, suprised as hell. And that's not an exaggeration or a figure of speech: people really did come down here to South America in droves, tricked.

As an adoptee, I totally agree with the NYTimes investigating the adoption records. Latin America is known for money laundering and black market adoptions. This munch has been determined by the New York Times. The children are originally from Ireland who were brought to Latin America to be adopted by an american family. That in itself points to black market babies. One child would leave some reasonalble doubt that it could be legit. But two babies 4 months apart from Ireland, when Jane Roberts family goes to Ireland every 2 years where her family is originally from and not to mention they have the money to buy off people. Then couple that off they did not use an agency but a private attorney. Then they were infact denied by catholic charities to be ineligible to adopt along with several other agencies only leads to the speculation of the legality of the adoption of the two children.

OK - let's have it. The list of topics that are not supposed to be researched during a background check for a Supreme Court nominee. Because, this is going to come up again in the not-so-distant future.

So, let's have at it - once and for all, so all us good liberals know what we are allowed to inquire about and what we are not allowed to inquire about regarding the background of a Supreme Court nominee.

Here - I'll start:
1) Adoption records
2) ???
3) ...

What all did I miss? C'mon, let's get it all in there. We want a comprehensive list.