[jcroix2002]

there is a report that the NYT is looking into Judge Roberts adoption of his kids.
If this is true,then there are no words to express how low this is.

I guess it's only going to get worse.

jcroix2002

[angelize56]

You believe that! *Shaking Head*

DRUDGE REPORT SUN AUG 07, 2005 19:25:22 ET

NY TIMES QUESTIONED LEGALITY OF JUDGE ROBERTS ADOPTIONS; SUPREME COURT NOMINEE 'DISAPPOINTED'

**Exclusive**

Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts expressed great disappointment after learning the NEW YORK TIMES was poking around for details on his adopted children, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The DRUDGE REPORT first revealed how TIMES investigative reporter Glen Justice questioned if the adoption records for the Roberts children, Josephine and Jack, ages 5 and 4, would be made available for examination.

TIMES editors were determined to find any possible legal irregularities in the adoptions, insiders claim.

FOXNEWS's Brit Hume reported late last week how the TIMES has been asking lawyers that specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records:

"Sources familiar with the matter tell FOXNEWS that at least one lawyer turned the TIMES down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.

A senior editor at the TIMES lashed out at this space over the revelation:

"The DRUDGE REPORT is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened," blasted the paper's senior editor in a press release.

But the editor did confess: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions... They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue." (They haven't a sensitive bone in their bodies!)

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

The National Council For Adoption issued the following statement:

“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."

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jrn.htm

[linskyjack]

Much ado about nothing---a slow news day for the Matt Drudge.

[angelize56]

A slow day for the NYT too....Drudge just pointed out the article?

[linskyjack]

I didn't know there was an article---I thought that Drudge said they were researching?