by Michael Muskal
Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker who has become a leading conservative critic, today backed away from his comments that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a racist, but continued to question whether her philosophy qualified her to become the first Latina on the top court.
In a letter to supporters and a posting on his website, Gingrich said the use of the word "racist should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable."
Gingrich had joined with conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh in calling Sotomayor a racist after a speech she gave in 2001 was widely circulated. In it, Sotomayor said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
See the full report on Gingrich and Sotomayor at the Los Angeles Times and here in the Swamp:
Conservatives have seized on the quote to argue that Sotomayor, 54, is an activist liberal judge who would place racial and ethnic characterizations above the law in her decisions. In private meetings with senators, Sotomayor has insisted she would follow law, not personality, in reaching decisions.
"My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct," Gingrich said today. "The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court have been critical of my word choice."
The use of the word "racist" rankled some Senate Republicans. Top Republicans, including Alabama's Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, said they wanted a fair hearing and cordial airing of Sotomayor's views.
In television interviews today, Sessions said he was "very glad" that Gingrich had decided to step back from the term. "I think that will help us have a real good discussion about the serious issues that the nation faces and that the court faces," Sessions said.
But Sessions added he was still concerned about Sotomayor's past statement because it raised questions. "It's inevitable that your personal views would affect your decision-making," Sessions said. "And to me, that's directly contrary to our great history of blind justice in America."
Sotomayor today had her second day of meetings with top senators in preparation for hearings on her nomination to replace Justice David Souter, who is retiring.
Comments
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often then not come to a better conclusion then a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life." Oh wait a minute....if I were to actually say that in a speech some where....I would be labeled a racist....but when she say's it....she's not a racist....how are any of you brilliant white liberals going to explain that to your children???
Posted by: Joe | June 3, 2009 2:10 PM
Newt wants to be president and it dawned on him late that in order to do that he has to appeal to more than just the dwindling base of white GOP voters. Hispanics are the fastest growing group in America and will play an even larger role in the next presidential election.
Posted by: Quippy | June 3, 2009 2:30 PM
MSNBC just did a report on this. You can watch it here:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/06/gingrich-backpedeals-on-sotomayor-is.html
Posted by: Matt | June 3, 2009 2:32 PM
How many times did we hear the Repugs say "Up or Down vote!" During Bush Jr's picks? A million times a day? 10 million times a day? These people are unashamed to be total hypocrites.
Today's Republican Party - An out-of-control GOP base doing all they can to alienate every voting bloc to the left of Jesse Helms, and a Republican leadership (Gingrich, Limbaugh) pretending to have nothing to do with it while fooling no one.
Posted by: Conando | June 3, 2009 2:48 PM
Suddently, after two weeks of shameful hate speech, word has gone out to bombastic conservative blowhards and unelected, disgraced former Republican politicians to tone down their nasty sexist, ethnic, and personal attacks on Judge Sotomayor. All of a sudden, Gingrich and Limbaugh are backtracking on their vile rhetoric.
What hate-filled narrow-minded strategy are they working on now?
Posted by: Carol A. | June 3, 2009 2:57 PM
The fact that corporate media "news" people who schedule the talking heads, pundits, ops, and whatever other drivel that passes for "commentary" and "analysis" these days, persist in bringing disgraced yeggs like Gingrich before the public as credible and news worthy is laughable - if not outright comedic.
Posted by: Dr | June 3, 2009 3:02 PM
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often then not come to a better conclusion then a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life." Oh wait a minute....if I were to actually say that in a speech some where....I would be labeled a racist....but when she say's it....she's not a racist....how are any of you brilliant white liberals going to explain that to your children???
Posted by: Joe | June 3, 2009 2:10 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Keep talking Joey,
You represent the dumber than a bag of rocks, shrinking Republican base PERFECTLY!
The very same angry old rich white guys who run the GOP, the one's who have been cultivating their followers to follow their base instincts such as race baiting xenophobia, war mongering, promoting enhanced interrogation techniques, and giving the wealthy continuous socialistic support, now want us to believe because of one misstatement that Sotomayor is a racist against white males? Ha Ha Ha!
.
http://www.truthout.org/060109J
Posted by: Maria M | June 3, 2009 4:40 PM
What standing does Newt have to say one word about Sotomayor? Seriously, who elected him to anything (at least since he was defrocked from the Congress)? Who pays his bills? What's his agenda? If this is the best the GOP can come up with, the party is in for a loooong exile.
Posted by: athena | June 3, 2009 4:53 PM
I remember when "flip flopper" was the number one hit on conservative talking points. How's your boy Newt doing?
I am waiting for a Gingrich/Palin ticket. How awesome would that be?
Posted by: batski | June 3, 2009 5:12 PM
DR:
They are not "news" in any sense of the word. They are a way to sell commercial time, nothing more. I really do not think there is a need for 24-7 news channels. They could be on a few hours a day but they generate a lot of revenue for the corporations that own them...and if we couldn't see those commercials we wouldn't know the next drug we will have to beg our doctor for without them!
Posted by: lochnessmonster | June 3, 2009 5:15 PM
The very same angry old rich white guys who run the GOP, the one's who have been cultivating their followers to follow their base instincts such as race baiting xenophobia, war mongering, promoting enhanced interrogation techniques, and giving the wealthy continuous socialistic support, now want us to believe because of one misstatement that Sotomayor is a racist against white males? Ha Ha Ha!
.
http://www.truthout.org/060109J
Posted by: Maria M | June 3, 2009 4:40 PM
Marie....instead of attacking me....try to defend the statement that Sotomayor made. You know if a conservative had made the same statement...Shumer, Durbin, Reid and the whole gang of cable news lackeys would demand an immediate withdrawal of that candidate for the Supreme Court. You don't seem to have an argument because you know I am right.
Posted by: Joe | June 3, 2009 8:00 PM
joe said
""I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often then not come to a better conclusion then a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life." Oh wait a minute....if I were to actually say that in a speech some where....I would be labeled a racist....but when she say's it....she's not a racist....how are any of you brilliant white liberals going to explain that to your children??? "
children, come here and let me explain history. For centuries white people owned black people. They were forced to give up their slaves (we even fought a civil war over it) Slaves were set free. Whites killed and oppressed blacks and non-whites to keep them from being equal for many a year. Now Biff and Todd, that is why the black kids whupped your littlte butts for saying the "N" word today. Now, I know that Carlos also said the "N" and didn't get his butt whupped, but his people didn't own blacks or oppress non-whites and that is why he can get away with saying the "N" word and you two can't. It's called history. If it's any consolation, my friend the banker, red flagged their neighborhood, so they can't get loans.
Posted by: walrus | June 5, 2009 1:08 AM
Joe, the statement is indefensible, as you can see by the idiotic attempts to so on this blog. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty would admit a white male who made that statement could kiss his nomination goodbye.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 5, 2009 11:49 PM
Sotomayor's words were part of an entire speech about whether nine white old men can fairly judge all cases brought to them, and the fragment of that speech that caused several GOP fanatics to do a great imitation of an idiot do not stand alone. Read the full speech for yourself at http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/new-conservative-racist-strategy-call-sotomayor-racist/ and you will see that she was refuting a statement that there is no difference between a wise old man and a wise old woman when it comes to dispensing justice. She was saying that in cases where the issues are outside the realm of experience of the wise old man, he is not qualified to understand the issue. Personally, I agree with Sotomayor, despite being an old white man (still working on the "wise" part).
For example, no wise old man can understand as well a wise old woman: the horror of being a 13 year old girl being forced to strip at school, because of third-hand hearsay that she might have (gasp!) AN ASPERIN!
Posted by: Mark | June 7, 2009 10:08 AM
Mark,
to know your personal limitations is wisdom in itself. I vote you for the next supreme court opening (after this one, of course)
My female cousin (a psychologist) and I were having a debate once. She contended that she could "put herself in the shoes" of almost anyone and know what they were thinking in most any situation. I told her, "I know what a cramp feels like, but I will never know what a menstrual cramp feels like. You will never know what a kick in the crotch feels like to a man".
A white man will never know what it feels like to grow up a minority female.
If everyone on the court should arrive that the same conclusion based on the facts, why do we need to know their opinion of Roe v. Wade?
Everyone will come to the same conclusion based on the facts, right? So, stop asking their opinion on Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: walrus | June 14, 2009 1:19 AM