NYT Fishing Expedition Gone Bad

Drudge reports:

TIMES editors were determined to find any possible legal irregularities in the adoptions [of John Roberts' children], 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."

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."

The Times is struggling to do damage control after it was revealed that the paper was trying to get into the sealed adoption records of little Josie and Jack in order to discredit Roberts.

Too late. The damage is done.

I'm not surprised that the Times would pry into the lives of innocent children. They're consistent in their zealousness to destroy and obstruct Bush's agenda, including his judicial nominees.


By going on this fishing expedition, the Times hoped to dig up some dirt on Roberts. A bonus for this lib publication would be to expose adoption as a dirty business. I guess that might forward their pro-abortion crusade.

Roe v. Wade and abortion---GOOD

John Roberts and adoption---BAD

The entire story disgusts me.

I'm glad the NCFA came out so strongly against this despicable effort to hurt Roberts by getting at his children.

It's ironic that the dirt is on the Times.