For some reason, I missed seeing Michelle Malkin on Fox and Friends this morning, even though I was awake the entire time and had Fox News on. Go figure. It also kinda didn’t help that for the first time I can recall, she didn’t mention it on her blo…

Michelle Malkin makes a good point: Intense reaction to the N.Y. Times’ journalistic dumpster diving into the sealed adoption records of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ two young children continues to pour in. Here’s a sample of the letters I’m…

Why are we surprised that the New York Times is preying on Judge Roberts’s two small children by trying to investigate and publicize their private adoption records? As the children are adopted ,there is a good chance they escaped abortion by only the n…

Of course, this may have nothing to do with the nature of the investigation by the Times. No doubt they are looking for some impropriety that they can use against Roberts on their editorial page. But is the legal adoption of these children by parents…

Several bloggers are following the story of the NYT assigning an investigative reporter to get into the sealed adoption records of SCOTUS nominee John Robert’s two children…and asking lawyers about how to accomplish it. Michelle Malkin is on it. She…

Lead by the NY Times, the “main” of “mainstream media”, the ink-stained wretches of the press are (as previously posted) digging in the adoption records of Roberts’ kids. Well, now they’re getting some “blowback”…more HERE Confirm Them asks an intere…

According to The Corner, the New York Times sent this letter to people expressing concern over its investiation into the adoption records concerning John Roberts’ children:

Dear Reader,

Thanks for writing to us.

While the public editor does…

Obviously, as an adoptive parent, I’m just a wee bit sensitive to the matter. I am thrilled to talk about our adoption stories, and how we came to find our two precious children in Russia. But, the adoption records are nobody’s business but our own.

Personally, I am not surprised. This reminds me of the Bork stuff where reports were able to obtain the list of movies that Robert Bork (and family) had rented. But obviously this is much more serious than movie rentals.

They’re silent now, but soon the millions who approve the NY Times effort to get into sealed adoption records of Judge Roberts and his wife Jane’s children will speak up. I thing we can be pretty sure who’ll they’ll be. How about you?

Another example of there being little left of sane political debate in this country: The New York Times is trying to find dirt on Judge Robert’s adoption of his two children with no evidence of anything but a normal adoption

…“We have solid evidence,” the Times reports, “that Mr. Roberts is not the biological father of these adopted children.”…

It would be reprehensible. The young kids have nothing to do with whether Roberts would make a good justice. There is absolutely no reason to make their private information public. The NY Times has a right to publish information about Roberts himself, …

Michelle Malkin publishes some outstanding letters from her readers on the NY Times’ dirt-digging on John Roberts and his adopted kids. E.g.: As the adoptive parent of a Chinese daughter, to say I was furious is an understatement. Maybe the…