A Line Has Been Crossed

Perhaps conservatives should be encouraged by the fact that the left-wing extremists cannot find anything substantive on which to mount opposition to John Roberts’ elevation to the United States Supreme Court. But, encouraging to those who support his appointment or not, the weak shots that have been taken by the left in order to question his fitness for the Court are inexcusable nonetheless.

Granted, one might initially be tempted to dismiss such antics as laughable, but at some point, a line is crossed at which time the laughing must stop and the despicable intent of the practitioners must be noted. After a series of incidents that have each seemed a bit more ludicrous than the last, that time has been reached in the John Roberts episode.

First, there was the predictable complaint that he was a man. While everyone, including those raising the complaint, knew that this was a line of attack that would never gain much traction, those who feel compelled to wage gender warfare in the political realm must have certainly seen a need to at least publicly note that President Bush had committed a minor offense in their eyes by replacing a female with a male.

Then there was revealed the scandalous fact that Judge Roberts’ wife, also an attorney, was a leader in a pro-life organization. This was followed by the discussion, that continues to this day, about his relationship with the conservative Federalist Society – never mind the fact that one of his would-be colleagues on the Court is a former leading litigator for the ACLU who has argued in favor of legalized prostitution as well as the possibility of a right to polygamy.

And of course, who could forget the Washington Post Style piece that criticized the Roberts for dressing their children too traditionally for the ceremony announcing President Bush’s decision to nominate him as the new Associate Justice? Not only did that particular attack demonstrate a lack of connection on the part of the writer with a huge portion of the population – regular church-goers are liable to see quite a few kids similarly dressed every weekend – but it may have represented the most ludicrous and inappropriate line of attack to date.

To today’s date, that is.

Speaking of the Roberts’ children, the Drudge Report is now reporting a new angle of attack that the New York Times is considering in its ongoing attempt to discredit anything with George Bush’s fingerprint on it, or that conservatives might support. As noted by Drudge, the alleged “paper of record” has assigned investigative reporter Glen Justice the task of looking into the adoption records of Josie, age 5, and Jack, age 4.

Recognizing that most Americans will see the inappropriateness of this action, the Times is trying to cover itself by noting that looking into private adoption records are “part of the paper’s ‘standard background check.’” This, of course, leaves unanswered the question of what business it is of the New York Times to conduct such a background check, unless it is actively working to assist the extremist Democrat Senators who want desperately to torpedo Judge Roberts’ nomination – a suspicion that history shows might not be devoid of merit.

Parenting young children in a culture that seems to want to deprive them of their innocence at younger and younger ages is tough enough under any circumstance. But, as a potential adoptive father, this writer takes particular offense at the very personal level to which this move on the part of the Times lowers the dialogue regarding Mr. Roberts’ qualification for the court.

Young children such as Josie and Jack did not ask to be made a part of this debate. Their lives, and their relationship with their parents should be considered out of bounds to all those engaging in the debate. Indeed, to all decent people, they already are. Unless the gray-and-withering-lady can produce some rock solid justification for even suggesting that such an investigation as they have started should be conducted, the investigation should be immediately called off, and an admission of an error in judgment should be forthcoming from the editors.

But no one should hold their breath waiting for such from the leading member of the media wing of the Democrat party. This is just the latest evidence that the minority party – as selected by the American people in each of the last six national elections – has become devoid of ideas, relying instead on the hope that they can convince enough people to join them in their hatred of their enemies to justify the most shameless lines of attack. Thankfully, it hasn’t worked yet, and most likely won’t in the near future. There are simply still too many Americans who are decent for this to be an effective selling point.