New York Times to investigate adoption records of Roberts children.

www.drudgereport.com...

The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

Both children were adopted from Latin America.

A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's "standard background check."

Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldn’t stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience.

Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony.

One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES action declared: “Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits. The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.”

One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. “This can’t possibly be true?”

this makes me sick. i support NYT investigating many things but this is over doing it. are they really trying that hard to discredit Roberts?

And I would be, as you should too, wholeheartedly behind turning over everything beforehand.

IF this is true (and I can't find anything else on it yet) ...

It's not like they're going to interview the children or bother them in any way. They may want to check out the documents to see if everything is on the up and up, I suppose. The children never even have to know about it. It wouldn't be the first time somebody in politics did something immoral or illegal, you know.

John G Roberts is the guy who stands firm on the opinion that the US Constitution does not guarantee the right of privacy. Remember? Or is that only as it applies to other people?

To play devil's advocate, if he hasn't done anything wrong, what's he got to hide?

What's the worst thing that can happen here? We find out that Roberts moved to the head of the adoption line because of his position? Oh no!

This is really grasping at straws, IMO.