Was it explained how Roberts managed to adopt Irish children?

[muriel_volestrangler]

Sorry if this has been settled already here on DU (without search, it's not easy to tell), but the latest thing I can find written about thiswas the comment on this blog (end of page, dated Sept 5th):

Under Irish system of adoption, both private placements and private assessments are illegal. Additionally the 1993 Hague Convention on protection and co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption, forbids any improper financial gain from adoption.

The (British) Sunday Times, this past weekend reported that there are apparently no records of Judge Roberts and his wife adopting these two children through official channels in Ireland and the matter is being looked into.

The circumstances of the adoptions certainly raise questions from the perspective of Irish adoption law and whether Judge Roberts and his wife have broken these laws, whether wittingly or not.

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2005/08/blondeness_and.html

though I can't find the Sunday Times article referred to. I think with the apparent impossibility of legal adoption of Irish children by anyone other than an Irish resident, this is a valid question - someone who uses strange tricks (such as shipping the mothers out to a Latin American country) to get round another country's laws is not suitable to be the top judge in a country. If he did it all legally and above board, then the subject should be dropped, of course.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. In theory, I sort of agree with you

But there is something inherently distasteful about making a man's children a target, and I think this sort of thing is off-limits in a legitimate inquiry into an individual's fitness to serve on the bench.

[mattclearing]

3. Tell that to Rove re: McCain's kids. n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. My point, exactly

Do we need to be disgusting just because Rove is disgusting?

Face it - Roberts is going to be confirmed, and I seriously doubt that he'll be any worse than Rehnquist. So, I think decent behavior and serious contemplation is called for here.

Besides, as I said, what bearing on his legal capabilities do his children and their origins have?

[eleny]

24. The issue is his respect for law

[OldLeftieLawyer]

25. If that's the only area in which ......

....... someone believes he might have circumvented a law, then I'd say he's more than qualified.

Shades of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood. I wonder who will want to serve in government when their personal lives would be taken apart to determine their suitability in office.

Perhaps we should find out if he ever got a parking ticket, ran a red light, forgot to genuflect to the God Of Politically Correct, or smoked dope.

The notion that someone who's spent his life in the law has no "respect" for it is baffling to me.

Where does this sort of torchbearing mentality come from?

What's the point?

Where does this end?

[eleny]

27. Your "torchbearing mentality" epithet is out of bounds

I'll be more than willing to discuss this further if you collect yourself and are willing to be respectful.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

40. Thank you

I had a lot of good laughs today, but your post here was the biggest of them all.

Bless you and thank you.

[eleny]

41. Your welcome

[DoYouEverWonder]

43. Because there are 10,000's of people who would love to adopt

and have to go through hell and high water to get there. Just the process alone is usually very expensive and demeaning. Every aspect of your life is under the microscope.

Roberts does deserve to be questioned about the circumstances regarding his adoptions. Especially, since adopting children from Ireland is almost impossible for anyone who is not an Irish citizen.

This has nothing to do with the children, the question is the legitimacy of their adoption and if a lawyer didn't follow proper procedures to get them, then he has no business on the Supreme Court or any other court for that matter.

[Jersey Devil]

5. Yes, we dare not question acts of noblesse noblige

It takes a peer to ask such questions and we are not worthy.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

20. What's the point of the questions?

If you cop that attitude, you're already playing with a short deck. Why handicap yourself that way?

What bearing does this issue have on Roberts' fitness to serve on the Court?

[Jersey Devil]

28. What bearing?

If he circumvented Irish law and adopted the babies illegally or through some type of obvious scam that would be the entire ballgame for him (I know he is fond of baseball metaphors).

[OldLeftieLawyer]

33. If that's all you can get him on,

I'd say you're behaving worse than freepers.

Some things really should be out of bounds. Like family.

The man has a lifetime of professional history. Why not examine that, and find whatever faults might be there?

This adoption stuff is Bush league.

[Jersey Devil]

34. Bush didn't seem to have any problem with it

Remember Clinton's black baby and the DNA tests? Remember the smears of John McCain?

I am not suggesting that, but it certainly is not dirty pool to ask just how he could possibly have legally adopted when Irish law seems pretty damned clear that he should not have been able to.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

35. That's the saddest response

Lower yourself to his level.

I'll have none of it.

To each his own.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. But in this case, I don't think the children are a 'target'

it's not criticising the children in any way, or prying into the children's life - it's what Roberts and his wife may have done in the run up to their adoption. To make it clear, I wouldn't advocate taking the children away or anything like that - it would just be a question on a judge's attitude to the law, and whether he's willing to bend it for his own feelings.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

21. Here's what I think

It's every bit as PC and incredibily stupid and irrelevant as were the allegations about Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird. Ridiculous. This whole "investigative" mindset is a classic case of forest v. trees.

There's plenty to know about Roberts from his professional record. I say leave their personal lives out of it.

I never thought Clinton should have had to answer that question about his personal life in that deposition, and look where it led.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Are all adoption laws 'PC' then?

Should anyone be allowed to do whatever they want when it comes to adoption, because it's their personal life? If he had simply bought the babies from the mother, where that's against the law, would you be happy with that too?

Would you be happy if he was a drug user who regularly bought illegal drugs? After all, that's his personal life too. As long as he doesn't attempt to drive or work while under the influence, he doesn't affect other people. Would you consider that out of bounds for inquiry? Whether or not you are in favour of legalising drugs, wouldn't you feel a little concern about a judge who made specific plans to break laws?

Clinton wasn't asked a question about breaking the law (I presume you're talking about Lewinsky). This is about law.

[ikri]

44. This is not about the kids

It is about whether someone who could potentially be appointed to the highest court in the US is himself a criminal.

If a judge potentially breaking the law is off limits to inquiry then what the hell is within the limits of inquiry?

[Jersey Devil]

2. There is an exception to the law for those who shower with Irish Spring

"With a bar of Irish Spring in your hand it's like taking a shower in Ireland"

The only other exception is if you are a direct descendant of a leprachaun.

Of course, the real answer is that he is of the 'privileged' class and we mortals should be ashamed of ourselves for asking questions of our betters.

[LisaM]

9. OK, I take this issue seriously but you made me laugh

For the first time in about three days, by the way.

[Jersey Devil]

11. Oh, I take it seriously as well, but

When this question was first raised when Roberts was nominated the WH immediately started the "tch, tch, such questions of people willing to adopt helpless children are in poor taste" spin, the press agreed and ever since no one has been willing to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

The truth is probably that being a person of wealth and privilege Roberts can do things that mere mortals cannot and we should accept it.

[crispini]

14. I agree that this whole line of research is distasteful, BUT,

I am beginning to think that it should be looked into. Largely, as one poster has said, with an eye to what the man himself is willing to do. There is no question of targeting the kids themselves, nor the concept of adoption itself -- there is the question of, Did he in fact break laws himself in order to adopt those children?

Somehow things have changed for me since I last thought about Roberts. I am much more willing to examine this nominee closely.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. Speak for yourself

You want to be inferior, that's your choice.

[Jersey Devil]

29. Hmm

I was obviously (I thought) being sarcastic

[texpatriot2004]

4. WOW! That link has ALOT of information about what is legal

and what is not. You don't think Mr. Roberts would do anything illegal do you? Hang on, I'll check...be right back.

[phoebe]

6. ..call it a "hunch" - this man will

not be on the court... don't ask me how I know..

[jean]

7. that's comforting. I hope you're right.

[BlueIris]

36. I wish I could be comforted by that hunch.

I think we'll get him because both sides are too afraid of who we'll get as a replacement if he goes down.

[Botany]

8. She and the kids might be cover for the fact that he is gay?

I wish nothing but the best for the kids and i hope I am wrong but
Roberts strikes me as one of the closeted self hating gays who populate
the bush administration and the republican party i.e. Ken Mehlman,
Dan Girly, Scott McCellen, Rove, Norm Coleman, a certain Fox broadcaster,
and so on. At least to this straight guy that is how it seems.

Roberts waited along time to get married and he did have his one liberal
fling standing up for gay rights once.

[Eric J in MN]

12. Stop saying that!

[crispini]

15. Is that him?

Whoa.

[Eric J in MN]

16. Yes, I got it from wonkette.com

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/john-g-roberts/index.php#the-many-moods-of-john-roberts-125119

[Botany]

18. Hello??????

that picture is 9 out of 10 points on the duck test.

Either that or he smoked a lot of dope before he went shopping.

Bet ya he has some supremes on the 8 track.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. I couldn't care about that at all

It certainly hadn't crossed my mind. It might even be good to have a gay judge in the Supreme Court. No, I'm just concerned about his attitude to the law, even if it's in another country (and note I'm British, so my personal stake in this is more or less zero, but I don't think countries should promote people who avoid thorugh loopholes, or even break, other countries' laws).

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

17. Thank you Muriel, I feel the exact same way you do.

Sadly, however, this has fallen off the radar here in the US. No one is gonna touch this with a ten foot pole. The adoption question won't be asked during the confirmation hearings.

There was never any follow up by the NYT or Time Magazine, so it's moot.

I have my own opinions on what happened with this, but if you want them, you'll have to PM me.

[crispini]

39. Closet case = self hating gay guy.

NOT a good thing. I'd be all for an openly gay guy-- but the closet cases -- issues.....

[annabanana]

23. If this man is to EMBODY the legal system for the next 40 years.

I don't think it is too much to ask that he have enough respect for the law not to break it when it suits him...

(I don't think that's asking too much, especially given the lawless proclivities of this administration.)

[jzodda]

26. Assume the worst

Assume he got around the rules to get the kids. Now if you think for even 1 second that the Dems could get any political traction out of this issue you are politically color-blind

This issue is a huge loser, not a winner and thats why no Dem is taking the issue on.

Most people will never see beyond the fact that he and his wife are helping some children who did not have a family. Its extemely hard under those conditions to then look at some red tape.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Perhaps - I can't judge the American attitude

(I'm British, and only lived in the USA for a couple of years). I thought this was potentially more serious than the 'illegal nanny' stuff that Clinton's nominees suffered from. The Republicans managed to get political traction from that, and no-one said "what about the chidlren?" then.

But it may not be 'red tape' - it may be a clear criminal act in Ireland. Their law seems pretty clear - children born in Ireland can only be adopted by Irish residents (and they have to be true residents - just owning property in Ireland isn't enough).

[annabanana]

32. for these guys, "red tape" and "trivial legalities" and

"significant legal ramifications" are one & the same and are to be disregarded accordingly.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. One of Clinton's candidates for Attorney General was raked over the

coals for not paying Social Security taxes for her maid.

If there's something "off" about the adoption, that should be fair game.

[DemDogs]

37. From the US Dept of State website

IRELAND

DISCLAIMER: The information in this circular relating to the legal requirements of specific foreign countries is provided for general information only. Questions involving interpretation of specific foreign laws should be addressed to foreign legal counsel.

PLEASE NOTE: Each year only a few Irish children are placed for adoption. Foreign adoptions are exceptionally rare, since adoptive parents must be resident in Ireland for at least one year.

[BlueIris]

38. Thanks for posting that.

I've read comments on a few blogs of a frightening nature about how Mrs. Roberts' family "maintained" close ties to their Irish relatives, and still meet there once a year for reunions.