NYT: Roberts Adoptions May Have Violated Commerce ClauseSelective choice of progeny "tantamount" to killing baby black market
Washington—Hoping to properly vet George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominee, The New York Times has uncovered a small, but potentially damaging inconsistency between Judge John G. Roberts' purported originalist views and what appears to be a violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution.
Otherwise known as the Commerce Clause, the brief line grants power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
"This is potentially explosive," said one insider at the Times. "His fastidious selection of alabaster-skinned Latin American orphans is taxing to the already threadbare adoptive system. This exceeds the regulatory admonitions in the clause, making Judge Roberts to look like a jurisprudent hypocrite."
Supporters of Roberts contend that the "regulatory ambiguity" of the commerce clause allows a vast array of interpretations—mostly broad and critical of Bush's well-liked nominee.
"Look, anybody can shoehorn a Commerce Clause violation out of about anything," said one GOP insider. "One Kennedy cash buyoff, and the Kopechne family's still setting out Mary Jo's Christmas stocking. You don't see anybody digging through Ted's garbage, now do you."
Many democrats are concerned that Bush's mild-mannered nominee will metastasize into a giant commercialist scofflaw upon assuming the bench.
"We are concerned," said one senate democrat. "When a man concedes a dearth of propagatory ordinance and adopts kids from across the way, it gives one pause. Why would Judge Roberts go to such lengths to make these kids legal aliens? Why tinker with the baby black market like that?"
Sen. Joe Biden said he would reserve judgment until after it was confirmed the adoptions were indeed valid.
"I just can't see it." said Biden. "I'll be disappointed in him if this rings true.”