http://darwen.us/southcon: John Roberts, Adoption, The <i>NYT</i>, And More

Monday, August 08, 2005

John Roberts, Adoption, The NYT, And More

The National Council for Adoption has issued a tersely worded criticism of the New York Times and their efforts (as uncovered by Drudge) to dig up the adoption records of Judge John Roberts:

NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts’ two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents.

The adoption histories of four- and five-year old children have no bearing whatsoever on the suitability of Justice Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court -- or in any other position, for that matter. Rather, this abject invasion of privacy shows a shameful disregard for the integrity of the family in general and the adoptive family in particular.

The statement, which I agree with entirely, is available here as a PDF file.

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) is outraged about the NYT's adoption digging, too. For her, this matter hits close to home.

Citing "simple decency," Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison demanded Friday that journalists quit poking around for details on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' adopted children.

"Some boundaries should be placed on inquiries into the private lives of public figures," said Ms. Hutchison, who faced some uncomfortable questions after she adopted her son and daughter four years ago, when she was 58 and husband Ray Hutchison was 68…

Ms. Hutchison called the newspaper's actions "reprehensible," saying the inquiry crossed the "fine line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy."

Roberts, as it turns out, has worked pro bono to prevent discrimination against homosexuals... and doesn't brag about his pro bono work, either:

A decade ago, John Roberts played a valuable role helping attorneys overturn a Colorado referendum that would have allowed discrimination against gays — free assistance the Supreme Court nominee didn't mention in a questionnaire he filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The revelation didn't appear to dent his popularity among conservative groups nor quell some of the opposition of liberal groups fearful he could help overturn landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a right to an abortion.

The more we learn about Roberts, the more he seems like a fairly complex guy. I like that. I get the impression, more and more, that he is personally governed by temperance, a belief in justice, and a very Christian kind of compassion. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, it’s incumbent upon the Christian to work to ensure that gays are treated fairly and decently, just as anyone else would be. “Hate the sin but love the sinner,” right? Isn’t that what we tell each other? Could it be that Roberts’ pro bono work in this case indicates that he actually lives by that creed? I don't know much about that pro bono case in specific, I need to learn more about it... but for now, I'm willing to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt.

Hey, maybe I’m naïve, but I think the guy might actually be more interested in matters of right and wrong than he is in politics. Could it be? I hope so. I’m starting to think so.

Of course, the liberals in the media are going into an absolute tailspin about Roberts. They can’t pin him down, but they’re still sure that they can pin all Christians down, and so they’re writing and publishing shrill screeds like this, from Diane Carman:

When the details were revealed last week about John Roberts' energetic involvement in overturning Colorado's anti-gay-rights amendment, it created some real cognitive dissonance in the evangelical community.

This is a group, after all, that likes its issues - and its judges - uncomplicated.

So how do you sing hosannas for a guy who contributed lots of valuable Hogan & Hartson legal advice to the cause of gay rights - even if he does look like a reliable anti-abortion-rights vote?

Could he believe in - gasp - moral relativism?

And, given his willingness to obstruct the religious right's relentless campaign against gays, is supporting him now in the hope of getting Roe vs. Wade overturned making a deal with the devil?

Sometimes, I wonder why I bother. These goofballs understand Christians better than we understand ourselves, right? Well, no. Here we go, one line at a time...

This is a group, after all, that likes its issues - and its judges - uncomplicated.

I love that. I love that classic liberal take on Christians. I love the mindset it reveals and how oblivious these lefties are to their own hypocrisy. Isn’t it interesting that sweeping generalizations like that are only OK when they’re made against Christians? If a columnist applied that exact sentence to any other sociological group, you know what would hit the fan, and know how much. But Christians? Go ahead and portray them as a closed-minded, simple, cookie-cutter group of morons. After all, all the really enlightened people know that to be true, right??

So how do you sing hosannas for a guy who contributed lots of valuable Hogan & Hartson legal advice to the cause of gay rights - even if he does look like a reliable anti-abortion-rights vote?

Actually, Ms. Carmen, we only sing hosannas for one Guy in particular… and he’s not nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States at the moment. But, I digress.

Could he believe in - gasp - moral relativism?

Or, could it be that he simply doesn’t believe in mistreating people? Could it be that his morals are actually far from relative, and are, instead, simple, basic, and Christian? Nah, that couldn’t be the case… after all, we all know how closed-minded and hateful those Christians are, right Ms. Carmen??

And, given his willingness to obstruct the religious right's relentless campaign against gays…

Oh, that’s right. We nutcase Christians have as many gays burned at the stake as possible, don’t we, Ms. Carmen? Why, our relentless campaign against gays is almost as fevered and bloodthirsty as the liberal media’s relentless campaign against Christians.

Let’s look a little deeper into Ms. Carmen’s piece...

I mean, if Roberts could rationalize advocating for gay rights, good heavens, that means he's capable of supporting women's rights, too….I know, I know. It seems ridiculous, but it's not inconceivable.

I’m sure Roberts is a big believer in women’s rights, Ms. Carmen. I’m sure he also supports all the same basic human rights for gay people. And, I believe that he very well may support those same rights for the unborn.

That’s where we’re really going with this, isn’t it? To people like Ms. Carmen, the issue of women’s rights really comes down to her belief that women should have the right to have sex without consequences and that they should have the right to murder their children before birth as a matter of convenience. That’s wrong. That’s not moral relativism, that’s not politics, that’s simply a matter of right and wrong, black and white, good and evil.

Why is it that the right to sex without accountability is the only right that people like Ms. Carmen worry about guaranteeing for women? You don’t hear these so-called “women’s rights” advocates frothing at the mouth about any other issue… but suggest that murdering an unborn child shouldn’t be an available form of birth control, and these pro-abortionists turn into ranting lunatics. Could it be because, deep down, they realize on a basic level that it’s simply wrong?

Oh, there I go again, being all Christian and everything. Shame on me.

Another item, totally unrelated to Judge Roberts...

Robert Novak apologized Friday for swearing on the air and walking off a CNN set, but said it had nothing to do with the federal probe sparked by his revelation of a CIA officer's name in a 2003 column.

"I apologize for my conduct and I'm sorry I did it," he said in an interview...

The incident occurred Thursday as Novak and Democratic operative James Carville were handicapping the Senate candidacy of former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Novak said the opposition of the Republican establishment in Florida might not be fatal for her.

"Let me just finish, James, please," Novak continued. "I know you hate to hear me, but you have to."

Carville, addressing the camera, said: "He's got to show these right wingers that he's got a backbone, you know. It's why The Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em that you're tough."

"Well, I think that's bull---- and I hate that," Novak replied. "Just let it go."

As moderator Henry stepped in to ask Carville a question, Novak walked off the set.

I saw a clip of the segment on CNN. Carville was doing everything he could to antagonize Novak. That's Carville for you.

One of these days, somebody is going to get even more fed up than Novak did. One of these days, somebody is going to knock a couple of Carville's teeth down his throat. And, as much as I know I shouldn't, I'm going to laugh soooooo hard.

Permalink -- Posted by Darrell at 12:28

Comments:

Didn't the NYT just go off at Drudge for getting that very story wrong? Then it turns out that they WERE doing just what Drudge was saying?

Sad thing is, I can't say I'm surprised.

# posted by

The Unseen One : 2:58 PM