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.
REPREHENSIBLE! Disgusting! I guess if it were a case where Mrs. Roberts had had two abortions, then the Times would have said nothing. I guess if Mr. and Mrs. Roberts had encouraged the mothers to think of their own needs over the children and abort the kids, the Times would probably be hailing them as heroes! I am disgusted by this blatant attempt at smear and going after someone's family! It is an OUTRAGE, it is disgusting, it is beyond the pale, and it is an atrocity.
Here is a statement, in the article, by a pro adoption group:
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."
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas called the inquiry reprehensible, and that it "crossed the line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy."
Yeah, Lefties, wasn't the foundation of your precious Roe v. Wade the expected right of privacy in such matters? What was that? Yes, Virginia, more liberal hypocrisy and wanting it both ways.
