The Old Gray Lady Stoops To New Lows
Drudge has done it again. He’s kicked the teeth in on a MSM outlet, and exposed what is possibly one of the nastiest, dirtiest moves in the fight over John Roberts.
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX
THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN
**Exclusive** 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." 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?"
Developing...
I can guarantee our readers that if I were the editor-in-chief of the New York times, whoever came up with this bright idea would be fired on the spot. This goes to all new lows of journalistic professionalism. We, at the Asylum, let the WaPo have it over the hit piece they ran about Roberts’ family the day after he was formally nominated, when they poked fun at his wife an kids for looking like Easter eggs in their pastels.
OK, I can take that. That’s just snide, childish behavior for the WaPo. They don’t know any better because they’ve sunk that low. But this is the Times. This is the "newspaper of record." This is the old "Gray Lady." People look to this paper on a daily basis. Granted, so do we, but mostly to catch them in their biased reporting. What the Times is about to do goes beyond any level of journalistic ethics. It is John Roberts who has been appointed to the high court.
His children were not appointed to the high court, and neither was his wife. So, why do the MSM keep bringing up his family. What his family does or doesn’t do doesn’t affect how this man does his job. These partisan attacks—and make no mistake, these are attacks—are increasing, and they’re just showing the pure desperation of the Left over the Roberts nomination. And as long as pundits like Ann Coulter keep shooting their mouths off, they’re adding fuel to the fire.
And yes, I’m taking the extraordinarily talented blond to task. She’s over the top, and screeching to high heaven. Take this point from her column today.
We had a pretty good idea what kind of justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were going to be. Scalia had spoken at the very first symposium of the Federalist Society as a young law professor — before it became a felony to do so — and served as faculty adviser to the group. (By contrast, Roberts is running from the Federalist Society like a 9-year-old boy running from Neverland Ranch.)
Ann, here’s a piece of advice. When you get hysterical, you make mistakes. I miss the reasoned arguments you used to make. Roberts isn’t running from the Federalist Society. He was never a part of it. Yes, he addressed the Society in speaking engagements when invited, but he wasn’t a part of that. I would expect a pundit of her talent and brains would have paid attention to that fact. The WaPo and bloggers debunked the MSM’s phony claims to that.
Compare that to the principal evidence cited to prove Roberts' conservative bona fides: As a judge, he upheld the arrest of a girl for eating french fries on a subway even though he disagreed with the policy. Well, there's a hot-button issue! (And if he's so conservative, why didn't he call them "freedom fries"?)
This jibe from here is reminiscent of Molly Ivins brainless rants. Maybe she’s been in New York too long, but Ann’s off base on this one. I expect more from a lawyer to understand the law. The law said no food. Sure, he can state he disagreed with the law, but he ruled properly, on the side of the law. Remember the law, Ann? That’s what you studied at Michigan Law School. Hell, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m already questioning her reasoning. (At this point, I'm beginning to question her overall knowledge; I'm not educated, and I can do better than she can on this subject.) This is emotion; pure and simple. Ann sounds like a liberal because she isn’t using reasoned judgment and logic. She’s using emotion. She was hoping for the next Thomas or Scalia, and she’s disappointed in Roberts.
Well, guess what Ann? We at the Asylum were hoping for Michael Luttig, or Miguel Estrada, or Emilio Garza, or Alice Batchelder. (My money was on Garza or Luttig. Guess who had to pay up?) We’re disappointed that the president didn’t choose one of our choices, but we’re not going on an emotion filled rant over it. We’re supporting the president’s choice, and doing the best we can to keep up with the blogosphere on this. But I can’t seem to find a single, serious thing that’s wrong with his knowledge regarding jurisprudence. Ann, please, sit down, clam down, and have some dip.
But to the Times, what they’re about to embark on is an embarrassment to the art of journalism. Granted, the MSM couldn’t locate their ethics if they tried, and even if they did find them under the rug—the same rug they swept them under—they still wouldn’t acknowledge them. This is absolutely crass and unprofessional. And as I stated above, were I the editor-in-chief, or if I were Pinch Sulzberger, I’d fire the journalist on this story, and the editor that gave him or her the go ahead.
Going after someone’s family is the lowest of the low, and it shows that the integrity of the paper sits atop the same ash-heap that so many other defunct regimes reside upon.
Publius II
Drudge has done it again. He’s kicked the teeth in on a MSM outlet, and exposed what is possibly one of the nastiest, dirtiest moves in the fight over John Roberts.
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX
THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN
**Exclusive** 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." 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?"
Developing...
I can guarantee our readers that if I were the editor-in-chief of the New York times, whoever came up with this bright idea would be fired on the spot. This goes to all new lows of journalistic professionalism. We, at the Asylum, let the WaPo have it over the hit piece they ran about Roberts’ family the day after he was formally nominated, when they poked fun at his wife an kids for looking like Easter eggs in their pastels.
OK, I can take that. That’s just snide, childish behavior for the WaPo. They don’t know any better because they’ve sunk that low. But this is the Times. This is the "newspaper of record." This is the old "Gray Lady." People look to this paper on a daily basis. Granted, so do we, but mostly to catch them in their biased reporting. What the Times is about to do goes beyond any level of journalistic ethics. It is John Roberts who has been appointed to the high court.
His children were not appointed to the high court, and neither was his wife. So, why do the MSM keep bringing up his family. What his family does or doesn’t do doesn’t affect how this man does his job. These partisan attacks—and make no mistake, these are attacks—are increasing, and they’re just showing the pure desperation of the Left over the Roberts nomination. And as long as pundits like Ann Coulter keep shooting their mouths off, they’re adding fuel to the fire.
And yes, I’m taking the extraordinarily talented blond to task. She’s over the top, and screeching to high heaven. Take this point from her column today.
We had a pretty good idea what kind of justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were going to be. Scalia had spoken at the very first symposium of the Federalist Society as a young law professor — before it became a felony to do so — and served as faculty adviser to the group. (By contrast, Roberts is running from the Federalist Society like a 9-year-old boy running from Neverland Ranch.)
Ann, here’s a piece of advice. When you get hysterical, you make mistakes. I miss the reasoned arguments you used to make. Roberts isn’t running from the Federalist Society. He was never a part of it. Yes, he addressed the Society in speaking engagements when invited, but he wasn’t a part of that. I would expect a pundit of her talent and brains would have paid attention to that fact. The WaPo and bloggers debunked the MSM’s phony claims to that.
Compare that to the principal evidence cited to prove Roberts' conservative bona fides: As a judge, he upheld the arrest of a girl for eating french fries on a subway even though he disagreed with the policy. Well, there's a hot-button issue! (And if he's so conservative, why didn't he call them "freedom fries"?)
This jibe from here is reminiscent of Molly Ivins brainless rants. Maybe she’s been in New York too long, but Ann’s off base on this one. I expect more from a lawyer to understand the law. The law said no food. Sure, he can state he disagreed with the law, but he ruled properly, on the side of the law. Remember the law, Ann? That’s what you studied at Michigan Law School. Hell, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m already questioning her reasoning. (At this point, I'm beginning to question her overall knowledge; I'm not educated, and I can do better than she can on this subject.) This is emotion; pure and simple. Ann sounds like a liberal because she isn’t using reasoned judgment and logic. She’s using emotion. She was hoping for the next Thomas or Scalia, and she’s disappointed in Roberts.
Well, guess what Ann? We at the Asylum were hoping for Michael Luttig, or Miguel Estrada, or Emilio Garza, or Alice Batchelder. (My money was on Garza or Luttig. Guess who had to pay up?) We’re disappointed that the president didn’t choose one of our choices, but we’re not going on an emotion filled rant over it. We’re supporting the president’s choice, and doing the best we can to keep up with the blogosphere on this. But I can’t seem to find a single, serious thing that’s wrong with his knowledge regarding jurisprudence. Ann, please, sit down, clam down, and have some dip.
But to the Times, what they’re about to embark on is an embarrassment to the art of journalism. Granted, the MSM couldn’t locate their ethics if they tried, and even if they did find them under the rug—the same rug they swept them under—they still wouldn’t acknowledge them. This is absolutely crass and unprofessional. And as I stated above, were I the editor-in-chief, or if I were Pinch Sulzberger, I’d fire the journalist on this story, and the editor that gave him or her the go ahead.
Going after someone’s family is the lowest of the low, and it shows that the integrity of the paper sits atop the same ash-heap that so many other defunct regimes reside upon.
Publius II
August 2005: Welcome To all the readers sent here from Jen's site and Raw's site.
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home