The Drudge Report details what one of my e-mail correspondents quite justifiably describes as: "Journalism at its lowest – despicable, and shame on the New York Times."

The Drudge Headline: "N.Y. TIMES INVESTIGATE ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN."

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."

Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: "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."

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.

As a modest shareholder of the New York Times Corporation, I tried five times to reach someone at that newspaper who could explain to me why on earth the Times would seek to expose the background of two adopted children – a cruelty which is almost beyond belief.

Only once did I reach any unrecorded voice: Stephanie Russell at the Times' national desk.

But as soon as I explained my concern and my attempt to hear the Times side of this issue, she said she was transferring me to another editor. And, once more, I heard a recorded voice rather than the editor's.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, described the Times' inquiry as "reprehensible" saying the inquiry crossed the "fine line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy."

The Times was also denounced by the National Council for Adoption.

"Some boundaries should be placed on inquiries into the private lives of public figures," said Sen. Hutchinson, who faced some uncomfortable questions after she adopted her son and daughter 4 years ago, when she was 58 and husband Ray Hutchinson was 68.