They're Coming For His Kids

Hey, be honest, what else should we expect from the "newspaper of record?"

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."

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."

"Standard background check"? Who do these press capos think they are, the f'ing FBI?

You know, one of the principle reasons why I strive to cultivate a high level of cynicism where the political opposition is concerned, bordering on laconia, is to be able to follow politics while not contributing needlessly to my family history of hypertension. Beyond-the-pale-isms like this really test that commitment. Though apparently I seem to have few peers in that regard, as even so distinguished a blogger as Steven Bainbridge used terms like "slimy slimeballs," "despicable," and "low-life scum." And the first term was his post's title.

But once the red haze dies down to embers, I find myself wondering what these assholes could possibly imagine that they're going to find by this surprise-rectal-probe-with-a-baseball-bat. That the Roberts' two adopted kids really aren't theirs? That they adopted them as part of a secret child porn ring run out of the Federalist Society? That the Roberts are kidnappers? That they're cannibals with a taste for human veal? That the kids are actually androids? That the kids are real and the Roberts are androids? That the whole family is actually the vanguard of invading alien pod people from the Perseid Nebula on a mission to suck the brains out of the other eight members of the Supreme Court, which, if constitutional reasoning ability were a flavor enhancer, would leave the Roberts clan with the equivalent of three cupcakes and five ricecakes? Surely not even the "Gay Lady" can believe that so distinguished a jurist and legal mind as John Roberts can possibly have f'd up the adoption paperwork. And even if he had, only the mentally handicapped can connect that dot to what kind of Supreme Court Justice he would be, because Supreme Court Justices have clerks to handle that sort of fiddle-faddle.

I've been of similar opinion to Mark Noonan on how the Roberts nomination will play out - the usual Dem lowball tactics, leading to a contrived excuse to filibuster, followed by the filibuster, followed by its breaking via the Consitutional option, and then Roberts' narrow confirmation.

But this latest NYT gambit transgresses about the only uncrossable line left in contemporary politics: don't go after an opponents' kids. Particularly when they're not even in grade school yet.

I'll make this prediction now: if Senate Democrats (i.e. neoBolsheviks like Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy, Boxer, et al) pick up this vile thread and use it, either in the hearings or around them, they can kiss a filibuster goodbye - Judge Roberts will get at least a dozen Dem votes and win by a 2-1 margin or better. No red-state Dem senator up for re-election next year will get anywhere near something this politically toxic.

Heck, this Extreme Media shitwad alone might be catalyst enough for this result.

I wouldn't formally predict that one, though; I'm not that big a gambler.

[HT: B4B]