Newt Gingrich Doubles Down On Sotomayor Racism Charge

Newt Gingrich grabbed cable news chatter all week after Twittering that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a “Latina woman racist.” The ensuing controversy has not moderated his opposition.

Today, Renewing American Leadership, a 501(c)3 nonprofit that he heads, sent out an email to supporters calling on them to both “send blast faxes” to U.S. Senators demanding opposition to Sotomayor and contribute money to help the fight. The email opens with this quote, from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “I have a dream: that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

It continues:

Can you imagine if the President of the United States nominated a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who said this:

“My experience as a white man will make me a better judge than a Latina woman would be.”

Or could you imagine if that same judge ruled from the bench to deny 18 African-American firefighters a promotion just because of their skin color?

That judge would be called a bigot — and in my judgment, rightly so! Would there be any doubt that he would be FORCED to WITHDRAW his nomination for the Supreme Court?

None.

The full email is posted after the jump.

From the Desk of Newt Gingrich
“I have a dream: that my four little children will one day live
in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
skin, but by the content of their character.”

- Dr. Martin Luther King

Can you imagine if the President of the United States nominated a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who said this:

“My experience as a white man will make me a better judge than a Latina woman would be.”

Or could you imagine if that same judge ruled from the bench to deny 18 African-American firefighters a promotion just because of their skin color?

That judge would be called a bigot — and in my judgment, rightly so! Would there be any doubt that he would be FORCED to WITHDRAW his nomination for the Supreme Court?

None.

There are only two options for how we govern ourselves – by laws, or by the will of those in power. The rule of law represents objective, dispassionate knowable standards that are applied and enforced equally to all citizens regardless of their background.

The will of those in power represents subjective, fleeting standards that are never fully known by any and are applied purely to satisfy the wishes of a small, concentrated group in power.

True justice is blind. It does not consider one’s religion, wealth, race or in this case sex, family origin and ethnicity. To do so would be unjust.

To put someone on our nation’s highest court who believes these traits should be considered in cases before the court, would be wrong.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has proven, by her own admission, that she is such a judge. Knowing this, President Obama should withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Consider what Judge Sotomayor said about how her being a Latina woman will affect her decisions as a judge:

“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.”

You read that right — Judge Sotomayor said that her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!

When did that view become acceptable?

If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion. It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview.

The checks and balances between the three branches of government are designed to prevent any small faction of society from exerting undue influence over the rest of us. If President Obama will not withdraw his nomination, then the Senate has a duty to ensure that judges with who hold these beliefs are not confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court.

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S.
SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT
JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!
The United States is a nation of immigrants from many backgrounds and their contributions have made our country great but that was made possible because our nation was built upon a solid foundation of law and order. The rule of law should be non-negotiable. It cannot be subordinated to ethnic or racial biases. To do so would be to make our Constitution arbitrary and meaningless undermining the very foundations of our society.

The rule of law is a crucial safeguard for the preservation of freedom.

As our civic and public leaders from many backgrounds have proven, America should continue to stand as a land of equality of opportunity, NOT equality of outcomes. Cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court should be judged on the merits of the arguments rigorously tested against the United States Constitution. They should NOT be judged based on the racial and ethnic preferences of the judges making the decision!

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what we’ll get if Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the Supreme Court — a judge who will interpret the law based on her ethnic background, rather than based on the LAW. In fact, she has gone even further to say, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences… our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

These are actual quotes from Judge Sotomayor, spoken at a symposium sponsored by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in October 2001. And as if that wasn’t enough to prove her ethnic-based (and gender-based) bias on the bench, that’s not all she said:

“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions… enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”

Remember, this is the same woman who, when speaking at Duke Law School, made it clear that she believes it is a judge’s role to “legislate from the bench”: responding to a question on the pros and cons of different types of judicial clerkships, she stated that the court “is where policy is made!” She tried to correct her slip, by joking that “I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know, I know.” But, she already made herself clear: She believes JUDGES MAKE LAW!

She is wrong. Lawmakers make law NOT judges.

Words mean things and her words give her away. No amount of explaining or spin can change what she truly believes and if she is confirmed she will bring those beliefs to the Supreme Court.

And that wasn’t just one little “slip” — in a 1996 article she co-wrote for the Suffolk University Law Review, she said, “Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”

It gets worse: According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of La Raza (“the Race”). The National Council of La Raza was the group that was willing to compromise our national security by promoting driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

The U.S. Supreme Court is no place for these kinds of judicial philosophies — we need to STOP this nomination from going any further before it is too late!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S.
SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT
JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!
Of course, no one believes that any judge can be 100% impartial and unbiased in every situation. Judges are human beings, and will occasionally allow their personal biases to cloud their attempts at impartiality.

But this is VERY different — this judge is making it CLEAR that she thinks she SHOULD be biased and partial, based on her ethnicity and gender!

As noted this week in The Hill, “these statements raise concerns about whether Sotomayor, who was raised under modest circumstances in the Bronx, would serve as a neutral arbiter in a case pitting a wealthy white male against a less wealthy man or woman of color.”

To understand the judicial temperament Judge Sotomayer would bring to the Supreme Court, just look at one of her most controversial decisions — Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor approved of the city of New Haven’s racial quota system and its decision to deny 18 firefighters their earned promotions — based on their skin color. This even provoked her own colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes (a fellow Clinton appointee) to object to the issued opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case!”

When judges make decisions based not on the application of law but on their personal biases about an issue at hand, the independence and authority of the judiciary is compromised.

Concerns about Sotomayor’s activist view of the law grew so great that, despite the fact that President George H.W. Bush appointed her to the district court in 1991, 29 United States Senators voted against her nomination to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998.

THIS time… she shouldn’t even get a vote, and should be withdrawn from consideration. It’s just not right — every American should expect that their sons and daughters from every background can rise by applying the work ethic under equal protection under the law.

Your background should NEVER impact the application of law under the U.S. Constitution. It should not be a consideration by the judge or an expected consideration by the judged. Decisions made by the highest court in the land should be made on the basis of what is right and wrong — not who is right and who is wrong!

When politicians, judges, or law enforcement officials choose to exercise their own judgment in lieu of what the citizens have decided in a Representative Republic, the very idea of self-government is eroded.

We must not be blinded by the allure of “good intentions”. We cannot defend our liberties by ignoring the system that allows for the protection of those liberties in the first place. The rule of law is the means by which a free people protect their liberty in a society of equals.

Barack Obama has made a poor choice by sending Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Senate. If he does not correct his mistake, American who care about justice, must take action — let the Senate know that you OPPOSE this nomination. And we’ve got a GREAT way to do that!

We’ve set up a website where you can send “blast faxes” to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE SENATE, telling them to REJECT Sotomayor’s nomination as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice! For less that what it would cost you to gather every fax number and send all those faxes yourself, you can send SCORES of faxes, ALL AT ONCE to Capitol Hill — to make SURE they hear your voice!

BUT… we have to act QUICKLY! Sotomayor’s nomination will be debated very soon in the Senate Judiciary Committee! SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S.
SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT

JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!
Your friend,

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House
Renewing American Leadership

P.S. The Obama White House is already attacking me for pointing out the obvious: that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. When he was specifically asked at the daily briefing to respond to my statements, spokesman Robert Gibbs gave a very ominous warning to anyone who dares to challenge this nomination:

“I think it is probably important for anyone involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.”

Well, I am not going to back down and neither should you. I see the damage that this nomination could do to our Constitution… and our country. We MUST stop Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court — or any OTHER nomination that threatens the Republic. Justice demands it!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S.
SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT
JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!

We need YOUR help to take this fight to Capitol Hill. Please consider supporting Renewing American Leadership with a generous donation today. $25, $50, or $100 will dramatically help us stand strong for the Rule of Law in America!

PLEASE MAKE YOUR BEST
CONTRIBUTION NOW:
DONATE ONLINE!

Paid for by Renewing American Leadership recognized as a public charity by the IRS under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Your generous contribution to support our important work is deductible as a charitable contribution to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • bbpdx

    Yaaaay! I love watching the GOP self-destruct. After the election, I didn’t think there was much left to destroy, but they’re finding a way.

  • Paul-no not that one

    I love the P.S.
    It can’t be an authentic republican message without the victimization.
    .
    Of course he doesn’t have to look across the aisle to find someone calling him out.
    .
    Sen Cornyn –He even lashed out at Newt Gingrich and the unassailable Rush Limbaugh.
    “Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials [and] I just don’t think it’s appropriate and I certainly don’t endorse it. I think it’s wrong.”

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/cornyn-gingrich-and-limbaugh-statements-on-sotomayor-are-inappropriate-and-wrong.php

  • vastwastelander

    Pnnto – The P.S. is great.
    *
    I only wish that, instead of “Obama White House,” it read “pack of rabid wolves.” That would make Newt’s plight more interesting. Then I’d be tempted to send “blast” packages of bbq sauce that could be spread on Newt, making him more zesty for said wolves. Do wolves eat Newts? I really should watch Animal Planet more . . .

  • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

    Perhaps Senator Cornyn will join folks such as Media Matters For America and ask why Newt Gingrich gets a megaphone from the corporate media whenever he wants one?
    .
    In the meantime, pass the popcorn and enjoy the schadenfreude (wait, is that redundant?).
    ~

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I’m not sure how publishing this e-mail in full is actually helping to move the conversation forward. We can probably divide the world into three neat categories.
    Nonapolgetic racists.
    Apologetic racists
    Non-racists.
    .
    Gingrich’s feigned outrage could make more sense if two things were true. A: If he could magically assume away all the traditional white racism that make’s anyone’s background matter at all and against which all other considerations need to be measured B: If he could pretend for an instance that his e-mail isn’t targetting unapologetic racists for whom A: doesn’t matter in the least.
    .
    Like the folks who think this is funny.

  • slaneyblack

    Should read: “Newt Gingrich’s Ad Copywriter Doubles Down on Racism Charge.”
    .
    Seriously. I write junk like this for a living. This is just heat for the fundraising punters, and someone like Newt who’s supposedly all worked worked up about “fundamental dishonesty” all the time should feel ashamed affixing his name to it.

  • shepherdwong

    Let’s just not forget how smart he is, OK?

  • vastwastelander

    shepherdwong – I especially like how he reminds us that “words mean thing.”
    *
    Uncle Newt, can you tell us what “adultry” means? How about “resigned in shame?”

  • Art Pepper

    MSM doubles down on steno role.

  • Cliff

    Too long; didn’t read.
    .
    But I am so glad that Scherer didn’t proclaim Newt’s genius.

  • textee

    Time magazine asserts: “Newt Gingrich Doubles Down On Sotomayor Racism Charge”.

    -

    Doesn’t Gingrich know that he is not to oppose the lawless, racist, political activists nominated by Obama for the federal judiciary who are supported by Time magazine and the other political advocacy groups of the Washington press corps?

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Gingrich’s feigned outrage”
    .
    The last time he was this outraged he was vowing to mention Monica Lewinski in every speech. Of course that was while he himself was having an affair. Either his first or second wife-I can’t recall which.
    .
    Thus we can conclude that when Newt is “outraged” over some behavior he is likely to be engaged in it himself.
    .
    Newt Gingrich is likely a racist. Is it irresponsible to speculate? No, it is irresponsible NOT to.

  • shepherdwong

    Uncle Newt, can you tell us what “adultry” means? How about “resigned in shame?”
    .
    How about “permanent Republican minority”?

  • gysgt213

    G. Gordon Liddy On Sotomayor: ‘Let’s Hope That The Key Conferences Aren’t When She’s Menstruating’
    .
    LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.
    .
    LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.
    .
    LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body.
    .
    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/

  • vastwastelander

    Pnnto – Newt is probably a racist, in that “Martian” would be a race and I understand that they hate Earthings.

  • vastwastelander

    Shouldn’t Liddy be off perpetrating a felony or something?

    Or maybe talking about how listening the Adolph Hitler as a kid made him feel “a strength inside I had never known before.”

  • stuartzechman

    Michael Scherer:
    .
    Has anybody asked Sonia Sotomayor what she meant by “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.“?
    .
    Has anybody asked her whether she meant
    .
    A) “…her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!
    .
    or B) someone with her quality and volume of experiences will be enabled to reach better conclusions than someone who hasn’t had those experience –even though that inexperienced person may be a white male
    .
    or C) something else?
    .
    If not, why do you think that is, Michael Scherer?
    .
    Isn’t it the decent thing to do when someone makes an unclear remark just to ask the person what they meant by it before expending barrelfulls of ink and quarks of electrons on interpreting what that person was trying to say?

  • gysgt213

    Wendy Long who was quoted in an initial article our own KT wrote concerning Sotomayor is completely shocked that this turning into a race argument.
    .
    Earlier today, MSNBC correspondent Savannah Guthrie got an email about the fight over Sonia Sotomayor from a shocked Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network. “Somehow,” she wrote, “this important debate is turning into an argument about race and identity politics.”
    .
    How ever could that have happened!? Maybe it had something to do with statements like this by…Wendy Long: “[Sotomayor] herself has said that she thinks it’s appropriate for her to make decisions as a Latina woman, from that perspective, bringing to bear those demographics on her decision-making. And that she thinks if she applies her personal views and her personal demographics to the case before her, she’s going to make a better decision than a white man.”
    .
    That was three days ago on Anderson Cooper. And there’s, of course, much more. Baffling, though, that this could have somehow become an argument about race and identity politics.
    .

  • stuartzechman

    Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.”
    .
    Jesus Christ, that’s offensive. What an ass.
    .
    “in illegal alien”?
    .
    That’s really f*cked up. That’s like “No dogs and Irish” signs.

  • greenlyfe

    stuartzechman, I don’t know if anyone has asked her but Media Matters put up a post about it that I don’t have at my fingertips right now to link to, sorry, but basically she made those comments at a conference on sex and race issues appearing before the judiciary. She also made the point of the many ways in which white men have made rulings that affirmed and protected minority rights. I saw them talking about this online clip from the CNN Rick Sanchez block; you can find that at ThinkProgress too. He also (Rick Sanchez) said he’d put it up on his website which I think he said online was http://www.cnn.com/ricksanchez.

  • Cliff

    Just for sh*ts and giggles:
    .

    rustyreturns Says:
    Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 6:07 pm
    I will say one thing; Sotomayor certainly knows how to create a “buzz” among the far left liberals and their accusations that the conservatives are going to bust a gut trying to stop her nomination from going through.
    .
    Hate to break it to you all, but this is not the fight the Conservatives are going to fight. Sure, there will be token statements from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Buchannan, but it is only fluff.

    .
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/27/re-what-if-pavlov-edition/#comment-68308

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Has anybody asked Sonia Sotomayor what she meant”
    .
    SZ-I’m not sure if you were being rhetorical but she is pretty clear about what she means in the context of her speech. The page linked has the “wise” section but the whole speech is there for anyone who is actually interested, as opposed to the media that have a motivation that does not include educating their consumers.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1

  • choska

    So, if the Republicans swear up and down that Sotomayor is unqualified and a racist, but then vote for her anyway because they want to appeal to Latinos, doesn’t that mean they are voting for her simply because of her race?
    .
    That wouldn’t make them guilty of making race-based decisions, would it?
    .
    Newt and Rush have backed the Republicans in the Southwest, California, and Florida into a corner. Either they vote against her because she is stupid and a racists, and then incur the wrath of their Hispanic constituents, or they vote for her and incur the wrath of the slack-jawed, mouth-breathers that constitute the majority of the GOP.
    .
    Gonna be a lot of tough races for the GOP in the House in 2010, especially in South Florida.

  • bullsmith

    stuartzechman

    Well from reading her speech, she was partially responding to O’Conner’s prior quote “A wise old man and a wise old woman will in the end reach the same decision.” (Or words to that effect) and saying while that is often true it is often not true. She noted earlier in the speech that a majority of those nominees who had waited a year or more for confirmation were either female, minority or both. I’m assuming that a majority of nominees did not fall into that category.

    I think she’s saying had the court been different, the result would be different and in issues where discrimination is a factor, experience with discrimination can lead to a better understanding and a better decision. Thus a Latina with relevant experience would more often reach a better decision than a white man without such relevant experience. She allows that this is not at all universal earlier in the speech, and that any individual can do the job perfectly well regardless of background. But more often than not, background is highly relevant, regardless of our best intentions.

    That’s my reading of it.

  • Ivy_B

    Greenwald gives transcript and link to Alito confirmation in which this was deemed highly desirable in him. Still OKIYAR.
    .
    ***
    And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
    .
    But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”
    .
    When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.
    .
    And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.
    .
    So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.
    .
    ***
    .
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/27/sotomayor/

  • stuartzechman

    greenlyfe:
    .
    she made those comments at a conference on sex and race issues appearing before the judiciary
    .
    I’ve read the entirety of those comments, and I have my own opinion of what she was saying (basically #2 in my list) and its importance in terms of her nomination.
    .
    But I’m simply interpreting those statements myself. In the meantime, President Gingrich is telling whoever will listen (Scherer, Halperin, the boys at Politico, etc.) that she meant #1 in my list. In fact, there is quite a bit of interpretation going on from the political media.
    .
    Unbelievably, Sam Stein at Huffington Post actually supports Gingrich’s contentions about what Sotomayor meant in his reporting:

    The White House hit back at Newt Gingrich on Wednesday for a twitter post made by the former House Speaker accusing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of being a racist.
    .
    Early on Wednesday, Gingrich put up a post on twitter rapping Sotomayor for saying that her background as a Hispanic female allowed her to understand cases in a different, better, manner than her white male contemporaries.

    “Imagine a judicial nominee said “my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman” new racism is no better than old racism.”

    Asked at the daily briefing to respond to the tweet, spokesman Robert Gibbs offered a bit of thinly-veiled shot at Gingrich and warned against the escalation of racially heated rhetoric…

    .
    Even Sam Stein accepts the fundamental premise of Gingrich’s contention, i.e. that she meant A) “…her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!“, as opposed to B) someone with her quality and volume of experiences will be enabled to reach better conclusions than someone who hasn’t had that experience –even though that inexperienced person may be a white male
    .
    Instead of interpreting what is obviously a difficult remark for even experienced journalists like Stein –to say nothing of the rightist jackasses who are reveling in their moment to call liberals racists– we should perhaps ask the people tasked with querying our politicians to simply ask her what she meant, and be done with it once and for all.

  • Matt

    Is Newt getting ready to lead some sort of far right revolt against the GOP? He has clearly been rebuked by most respectable members of his party yet continues to throw these unconscionable bombs out into the open. This is a perfect situation for the Dems and Obama…

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • rustyreturns

    Cliffy,
    I do not for one minute believe she is not a racist, and agree with Newt.
    .
    But, Sotomayor is simply another liberal replacing another liberal. That is where the Republicans would be smart not to fight this too hard. I do however support looking into all of her past judgments, and not letting one leaf un-turned.
    .
    What if she 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 black male who hasn’t lived that life.”? Do you take offense to that type of statement?
    .
    The faux outrage as usual is the far left’s reaction to a perfectly legitmate question. This “latina” woman clearly is stating that due to her racial makeup, heritage and up-bringing, that she will be in a better place than anyone else to determine the merits of any case. If it is not racist, then it is clearly arrogance on her part.
    .
    I beg to differ with her or anyone else. Just because you are brown, black, white or any other color of the spectrum does not give you the intelligence to be a justice based solely on that fact. What does give you legitamacy, would be your experiences, and how you have given your opinion in the past. Her choice of words is left to be desired, and I do believe she has already stated such to reporters. I now question her ability to be a judge, based simply on her very poor choice of words to describe a good judge.

  • 27rocketpants

    Maybe it’s just because most of you folks are on the older side of the spectrum, but I can’t believe no one has commented on the “blast faxes”. FAXES? So scary. I bet they are chugging out of the fax machines at the rate of 1 per 30 seconds, with only one allowed at a time. Teh horrorz! In 2009 that’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight. They could at least try something from the 90s like flooding their inboxes with e-mail and attempting a DOS attack or something. But FAXES? Well, no one has ever accused the Republicans of being technologically advanced so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

  • http://privcorr.blogspot.com/ wvng

    I have to say that this is about as much fun as you can have legally. The RW base, and their enablers, have been nuts for a long long time, but “polite society” just looked the other way. Starting with the Palin rallies, it became increasingly difficult to do so.
    .
    I expect that Obama picked Sotomayor at least in part to induce this behavior, just as he casually mentioned Rush that one time and got the Limbaugh head of the Repug party meme going strong.
    .
    Anyone got popcorn?

  • http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/inthepink/?p=7949 In the Pink: Texas Monthly

    [...] an email today, a group called “Renewing American Leadership,” headed by Gingrich, called on [...]

  • davidwaters1

    Best of luck to Sotomayor if the nomination goes through as it seems it will. It’s great that she’s the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court, but she has a lot of judicial challenges ahead of her. The US faces these domestic challenges but also international challenges. For instance, we should do more to address severe poverty overseas. The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:

    $30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

    $550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

  • stuartzechman

    FAXES?
    .
    I thought it was a metaphor. I didn’t really think he meant literal fax machines. I thought he was saying “man the battlements” or something like that.

  • spob
  • slaneyblack

    but I can’t believe no one has commented on the “blast faxes”. FAXES? So
    .
    It’s a standard rightist fund-raising thing. You click and then gotta pay them to send BLAST FAXES out for you. Seriously: Newt didn’t more than sign his name to this. It was written by an ad monkey deep in the bowels of some NoVa mail-order house. Guy probably wrote some copy for the Snuggie when he was done.

  • rose83

    I didn’t read it all – I do have a life – but wow there were a lot of caps. I’m guessing a teenage intern from a right-wing Christian fundamentalist college wrote that…
    .
    stuart, I think this is less about the media speculating instead of just asking Sotomayor to clarify her comments, and more about the decline of reading comprehension. She was definitely saying B. Her comments – in the context of her speech – were perfectly clear.
    .
    I also think there is a tendency to if not purposely than at least happily misunderstand innocuous comments in order to fuel personal outrage. Outraged does seem to be the emotional state virtually everyone in the MSM is aiming for. This all reminds me of the hysteria over HRC’s RFK remark.

  • stuartzechman

    This all reminds me of the hysteria over HRC’s RFK remark.
    .
    Sure does, doesn’t it?

  • stuartzechman

    the decline of reading comprehension
    .
    Sam Stein? Really?

  • Cliff

    rusty – I wasn’t quoting you to show you agree or disagree with Gingrich, I was quoting you because I thought it was interesting that you said conservatives shouldn’t fight this one.
    .
    And yet here we are, with unending screeching pouring forth about her nomination.
    .
    To be fair though, Cornyn has come out against Gingrich and Rush on this one.

  • pearlybaker

    Well they certainly got their money’s worth sending this to Mikey. He promptly posts the full text on a nationally recognized blog without analysis.

    1) Its too long.
    2 Even if I gave a crap, its too long.
    3) Its a blatant attempt to raise cash from the base.
    4) Its way too long and boring.
    5) M.S. demostrates his toolness yet again.

  • rose83

    stuart, I only read that excerpt from Sam Stein’s piece, but it just sounds like sloppy writing. I expect he understands her comments, but just didn’t express his own thoughts that well. He seems to be loosely using “background as a Hispanic female” and “white male contemporaries” as synonyms for having, respectively, a high volume and quality of relevant life experiences vs. a lower volume and quality of such life experiences.
    .
    Stein’s comments are actually closer to Gingrich’s caricature of Sotomayor’s comments.

  • stuartzechman

    Stein’s comments are actually closer to Gingrich’s caricature of Sotomayor’s comments.
    .
    That’s my point. Sam Stein at HuffPo wrote a report about the White House’s pushback on Gingrich’s comments, which were (in Sam’s words) a response to the Sotomayor quote which he paraphrased as Newt’s “interpretation”.
    .
    That’s not sloppy, that’s an acceptance of President Gingrich’s characterization of her quote.

  • shepherdwong

    …that’s an acceptance of President Gingrich’s characterization of her quote.”
    .
    Stein put it this way: “Gingrich put up a post on twitter rapping Sotomayor for saying…”
    .
    So, isn’t Stein attributing the characterization to Gingrich?

  • 53_3

    Rusty and spob can keep clinging to that driftwood, for all I care. A racist and a amateur practitioner of Southern Strategy pontificating on race. How hilarious.
    .
    Oh well, their ship is stinking, er, sinking anyway, and someone will rescue them from these uncertain political seas.
    .
    Or not…

  • 53_3

    Don’t forget, Cliff, that Micheal Steele* has come out against “slammin’ and jammin’” too.
    .
    I almost forgot. He’s Black. Guess he doesn’t count then.
    .
    And I still think that watermelons just won’t burn very well…

  • sacredh

    The plea for blast faxes and money would have been far more effective if they would have pledged to give a Dicer/Slicer to the first 1000 donors. Their antics remind me of an old National Lampoon cover. A gun was being held to the head of a dog and the caption said “If you don’t buy this magazine, we’ll shoot this dog”. Buh bye Spot.

  • rose83

    shephredwong, good point. I still think it was sloppy writing. Actually, it was definitely sloppy writing: yours and stuart’s interpretations are both plausible, which shows how unclear the passage is. Unlike Sotomayor’s eloquent and precise speech.

  • Cliff

    53: Yeah, I just saw that Steele spoke out against this nonsense, too.
    .
    I don’t think it counts for anything, though. They’re just saying these things so they can point back and say “See? I didn’t take part in the craziness!”

  • http://hungryhungryhippos.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/she-turned-me-into-a-newt/ She turned me into a newt! « Hungry Hungry Hippos

    [...] by any number of news outlets and even conservative bloggers), and Newt went Newt-cular in an email blast: If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept [Sotomayor on the [...]

  • http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/politics-religion-society/29964-conservatives-judicial-activists-5.html#post699591 Conservatives are the judicial activists – Page 5 – SLUniverse Forums

    [...] [...]

  • http://gopwilleatitself.com/?p=15 Next on Fox: When Elephants Attack (each other)! « gop will eat itself

    [...] Newt Gingrich tried to convert his own racism into a fundraiser.  In an email to his supporters he asked for donations to his “Renewing American [...]

  • http://www.thelegalline.net/2009/05/29/today-in-republican-news/ THE LEGAL LINE » Today In Republican News

    [...] Newt Gingrich, or Mr. Speaker of the House as he likes to be referred to as, has redoubled his efforts to demonize Sonia Sotomayor. In an email he submitted, Newt has calling for donations to assist in a campaign to “send blast faxes to every U.S. Senator, demanding they reject judicial activists like Sonia Sotomayor!” For less than it would cost YOU to send the faxes yourself, Newt offers to take care of it for you and simply asks for a donation in the amount of $25, $50 or $100. [...]

  • dencal26

    Sotomayors comments were racist and offensive. Anyone who denies they weren’t is dishonest or ignorant. Obama has nominated a judge with a 60% rate of being overturned by a higher court. She disrespects the US Constitution with her desire to create policy from the Bench. This has nothing to do with Newts marriage issues. Stop being sheep ready for slaughter. Respect the US Constitution.

  • sacredh

    We’re the slaughterers now. It’s conservatives that are the sheep we’re leading to the house. Angry white conservatives…it’s what for dinner.

  • ksquare2

    it’s somehow disheartening seeing a fellow American reasoning off the terrain of reality. more disappointing when a supposed learned fellow mime immortality knowing fully there is nothing immortal about human.
    law has emotion, a fact any mortal being can not disprove.
    the same fame seekers who vehemently opposed the choice of Obama are at it again.
    practical life and unobstructed truth as displayed by sotomayor will enliven the spirit of brotherhood in america.
    the apostles of doom like Gingrich should do something more meaningful with their precious time.

  • penalcolony

    It’s all in the punchline: send money!

    Gingrich’s beau ideal is not Reagan but direct mail pimp Richard Viguerie. who fattens his wallet on every controversy. And regardless of all his posturing, don’t look for Newt to seek the White House; that would interrupt his cash flow.

  • hulseboh

    I don’t know what the big deal is. Black people and Hispanics are generally uneducated and stupid so when just one of them gets an education, they should be given more opportunities to succeed. Aren’t all people created equal in this country, and if they aren’t shouldn’t we make them? I am a privileged white male and it gives me a certain amount of gratification when I give these charity cases awesome jobs, and it gives me even more satisfaction when I can hold my nose over them knowing that they didn’t earn it. The only people that get mad when this happens are racist trailer trash, so how about you go back to YOUR country I am sure Ireland or Scotland would love to have your family back.

  • sacredh

    hulseboh: Other countries have their own “no fly” lists. They wouldn’t be allowed back in.

  • ksquare2

    it’s somehow funny when a section of the society abrogate education to color. many Blacks or Hispanics might not be lettered but not as uneducated as one like “hulseboh”. an enlightened soul does not use vulgar and derisive language when addressing people especially on sensitive issues like this.
    but all these are confirmations of the fact that some whites sucks in all ramifications of human decency.

  • sacredh

    The post might have been a snark. If not, we have a new and improved troll.

  • http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/05/31/news-blast-and-podcast/ News Blast and Podcast | TaylorMarsh.com

    [...] other news today, Newt keeps pushing, now calling Judge Sotomayor “un-American” in an email blast. Michael Scherer at Time has the whole email. Not even reading it is believing. You read that right [...]

  • http://sirenschronicles.com/2009/06/01/sds-sotomayor-derangement-syndrome/ SDS – Sotomayor Derangement Syndrome : The Sirens Chronicles

    [...] bigoted wingnut actually is using this issue to raise money. He uses Martin Luther King Jr’s words in his email, from the TIME link: The email opens with [...]

  • http://storknineone.com/?p=215 League of injustice. | Stork-Nine-One

    [...] Newt probably put it best. [...]

  • http://evans-politics.com/wordpress/politics2bv.html Evans Politics » Blog Archive » June 2009

    [...] going the extra idiotic mile last week regarding Judge Sotomayor. On Friday, Gingrich sent out a fundraising letter restating his earlier accusations that Sotomayor was a racist, and then went next-level with his [...]

  • http://music.impulsenine.com/2009/05/i-heart-hilzoy-reason-12401/ I Heart Hilzoy Reason #12,401 « Impulse Nine

    [...] ordinary advocacy group, “a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses.” Newt Gingrich writes that we cannot accept Sotomayor’s rather anodyne remarks about experience being helpful in [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus