Have They No Decency?

I can only hope that this report isn’t true.

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.

This almost sounds too outrageous to be a real story. What possible purpose would the Times have to riffle through these records? What public good would be served?

I very much hope that Drudge was fed bad information. If not, the Times is going to get blastback the likes of which it’s never seen. The reaction is going to make the Jayson Blair story look like a gnat breaking wind in a hurricane and it’ll be every bit deserved.

If it’s not true, the Times needs to make an unequivocal statement right now repudiating the story.

Wise opponents of Roberts ought to be running away from this as fast as they can right now.

UPDATE: I wrote an e-mail to the Public Editor of the Times, Byron Calame asking them if the story, as reported by Drudge was true. Here is the text of my e-mail.

Matt Drudge is reporting, at this minute, that your newspaper is aggressively investigating the adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two small children. He has specifically named a reporter, Glen Justice, as the person assigned to this story and that his source describes this investigation as part of a “standard background check”.

Can this possibly be true? Is your newspaper actually going to investigate a nominee’s preschool-aged children as part of its coverage on his nomination?

We most definitely need to know if this story is true or not. If it is not, I believe a firm repudiation would be in order so as to protect the integrity of your newspaper and to deflect a false story. If it is true, I can’t imagine what excuse would make such behavior palatable
to any decent human being. In that case, we must know which editor approved such an investigation and that the investigation be stopped immediately and an apology issued publicly to Judge Roberts and his family.

My question now, though, is: is this story true?

Thank you for your time

This is the reply I received from Calame’s associate, Joseph Plambeck.

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.”

Sincerely,
Joe Plambeck
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

Note: The public editor’s opinions are his own and do not represent those
of The New York Times

This answer doesn’t sit right with me at all. I have sent a follow-up to this e-mail, in the hopes that the paper will answer some questions I have.

Thank you for the speedy reply. I am glad that there is no in-depth investigation into the adoption of Judge Roberts’ children.

I am, however, somewhat concerned that there was an inquiry at all. I fail to see where any aspect of the adoption of his children is in any way relevant to his potential service as a Supreme Court Justice. Obviously, his family life and personal background was adequate for him to serve in several sensitive government positions and to be confirmed by a large margin as a member of the DC Appellate Court.

What circumstances changed between his last confirmation and now that would necessitate any sort of inquiry into his private family affairs? For what irregularities were you searching that you believe may have been overlooked during the other years of Judge Roberts’ government service. Did you have specific information that there were irregularities or were you merely on a “fishing expedition”?

Despite your senior editors’ claim of “sensitivity”, I find any inquiry at all into such a private family matter between parents and preschool children deeply offensive. It is patently insensitive to delve at all into something that is, quite honestly, none of our business.

I am sorry that Mr. Keller does not believe such a thing to be an unconscionable intrusion. I can only hope that his personal life never receive such an intimate inspection.

Others are on this story as well.

Hugh Hewitt has a bet going on how the left will see this story.
One of Michelle Malkin’s readers wrote the executive editor of the paper and received a reply very similar to mine.
Jeff Goldstein has a list of other things that the Times might be investigating in Roberts’ life.

Lefty blogger TBogg thinks that if the story is true, everything is just fine….just fine indeed. No limits, says he. Ulterior motives for adopting the children – maybe as a career advancer, says he. Terrible that the press isn’t questioning the motives for the adoption, says he. I don’t have the words for the anger that a scumbag like this arouses in me, says I. But he won’t care. He’s got more mud to sling and can’t spend any time on decency and thought. Good on him for it since it entures that he and those who think like him will always wear the mantle of electoral loser.

Professor Bainbridge brings the indignation in exactly the right quantity. “Low-life scum” is exactly the right name tag for them to wear.

UPDATE 2: Captain Ed is on the story, too. One of his readers wrote the Public Editor and got exacty the same reply I did. Looks like the paper has slipped pretty quickly into “form letter” mode.