Monday, August 08, 2005

The Roberts Kids and Why They Matter to Their Dad's Appointment to the Supreme Court

It's pretty clear that the New York Times is investigating the adoption records of John Roberts' kids because he disagrees with their editorial board. Here is their response to inquiries, courtesy of Hugh Hewitt:

Dear Reader,

Thanks for writing to us.

While the public editor does not usually get involved in pre-publication matters, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts's children. He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this issue.

In addition, a senior editor at the paper wrote, "In the case of Judge Roberts's family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions."


Joe Plambeck
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

The funny thing is that there is nothing routine about such an investigation of such an intimately private and personal matter as this response implies. Nobody would have bothered (nor did) to pry into the family matters of Breyer or Ginsburg, so the very innocent spin attempted by the NYT public editor rings completely hollow. If they were "sensitive" as they claim, they would not have bothered in the first place. Who are they kidding--they want to trash the man through his kids. Yet another example of just how creepy and putrid the left has become in their pursuit of power.

Adoption records are sealed for a reason. The law favors integrity of families, and sealing the records prevents birth parents--and others--from disturbing established families, it being in the best interests of the children that they have stability. But to the NYT left, Republican parents and children shouldn't enjoy those rights.

It has zilch to do with his fitness to be on the Supreme Court, and is sleazy and mean. But why peck at those records? What does the NYT think is in there?

Drudge's take makes some sense. They want to show that the adoption may not have been done in a legally proper way. Meaning, they wish to break up this family because the NYT doesn't like Roberts. His children are fair game, if not tools in their efforts.

Forgetting how absolutely mean it is to involve one's children in an effort to create political harm, this effort falls completely off of the radar screen of evil to twisted and grotesque depths of cruelty heretofore unexplored and unexplained. They actually want to get into the legal union of the family and snap it. Seriously, what other possible objective could they have had here?

Folks, this is one to remember, and reason to cancel your subscription because the Times has finally crossed the line.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home