Newt Gingrich Apologizes For Calling Sotomayor A Racist

This is an apology?? If Newt’s words were “perhaps” too strong and direct, then implicity “perhaps” they were not too strong and direct.
.
And I don’t recall either the President or Gibbs “admitting” that the judge’s words are “unacceptable.” To say she would have or should have chosen different words is not to call them “unacceptable.”
.
If this sounds picky we are, after all, arguing about the fine points of a few words. Not only did Newt not apologize, he managed to erroneously suggest the President found her words unacceptable.

Maybe we should sit athwart Newt’s chest and do terrible things.

I don’t see words like “regret” or “I was wrong” or “sorry” or “apologize.” He is even restricting his words to those (it is to laugh) who are “open and honest.”
.
Instead he gets to run out these bizarre canards one more time, including having the gall to talk about equality under the law.

I’m sort of fond of the what I said on the last thread:
.
But since Sotomayor said nothing that even approaches that interpretation unless deliberately excised from it’s context, we can only conclude that the people who are dwelling on a single sentence uttered in 2001 are in fact motivated by their own racial animosity and their desire to assert that Latino’s aren’t even allowed to refer to themselves as that, let alone assert that their heritage might actually -gasp- affect them in a positive way.
.
It’s ironic that the same people who complain about ‘political correctness’ and feel that their own words are stifled by their inability to express their prejudices openly are the same ones who take the same ‘code of conduct’ and stretch it to the breaking point when considering how members of minority groups are allowed to talk about their own experience.
1

I’m so glad we can have this conversation about Newt Gingrich. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to o watch last week’s “Seinfeld” episode. (I finally figured out how to program my VCR!)

The other thing that can’t be said often enough:
.
http://phd9.blogspot.com/2009/05/re-sotomayor.html
.
The speech that the ‘offending’ quote was extracted from was in it’s entirety about her Hispanic heritage and it’s effect on her view from the bench. That she can speak for a 1/2 hour on the topic and have only 1/2 sentence come into question suggests that she is in fact a rather sensitive and bright observer of the current state of play. This, of course is precisely what PO’s the Hate-R-Us crowd.

Kathleen Parker has a dandy op-ed up about these repub spokes critters titled: Carnival of the Fire-Breathers. It’s good to see some conservatives embarrassed by the current behavior of their party. here are a few tasty bits from Parker:
.
It has long been a problem for the GOP that some of the party’s cherished positions are embraced most enthusiastically by people whose grip on reality is sometimes . . . tenuous. This is especially true with regard to abortion.
.
…
.
One can convincingly argue that the media have a hand in perpetuating the conservative caricature, but the Republican Party has contributed to the distortion by pandering to its less rational elements. Still fresh in our minds is the last presidential election — a strange season that might be attributed to GOP desperation if not for a prior history in times of political prosperity.
.
Two words: Terri Schiavo. During that 2005 Operation Rescue debacle — complete with death vigils and lamentations — Bill Frist, then the Senate majority leader and a practicing physician, lent credibility to the circus performers by diagnosing Schiavo’s condition via video and challenging other medical opinion that she was in a persistent vegetative state.
.
And let’s not forget how the GOP handled the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois against one Barack Obama. They inserted their own African American, none other than Alan Keyes. That worked out well.
.
We should never shoot the messenger, it should go without saying. But until the Republicans marginalize those who belong in the margins, they won’t be attracting many new recruits. And the messengers will continue to obscure the message.

Amen to that wvng. Newt has shown a talent for hypocrisy; and his “apology” is cynically self-serving. Newt looks into the mirror and loves what he sees.

This lukewarm backtrack does not come close to addressing the angry and bigoted comments Newt initially spewed at Sotomayor and the president.

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

A whole lot of the old crowd here this morning. Hi all. Hope the summer is getting off to a good start for you.

Newt misses another vital point. No human being is absolutely free from prejudice. But those who deal best with it and are most able to render ‘impartial’ decisions are those with sufficient self-awareness to recognize those emotions for what they are and set them aside.
.
Sotomayor makes that point clearly and Newt does his best to obscure it deliberately. Say what you will about him, he knows his audience.

And yet Newt finishes with this.
.

The stakes are very high with this nomination. Has President Obama nominated a conventionally liberal judge to a lifetime tenure on our highest court? Or a radical liberal activist who will cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity?

.
Sorry but in my mind that’s just a cuter way of implying that she is racist and sexist but that she just hides it well on the appellate court. I don’t see a hint of an apology anywhere in the screed. Usually when someone issues an “apology” the word “apology” or “apologize” finds its way into the text. This is a very very sympathetic reading of what is nothing more than a justification of Newt’s own words with a little window dressing IMHO. But now he can claim “I apologized to her, what else do you want”.

“You can read his new argument at the link.”
.
Uh, thanks but no.

I guess Newt couldn’t ask for better PR. Here a national reporter on a blog links to his blog and just repeats what he says links to it with no analysis on what Newt’s really motives are or could be.
.
I’m only saying this because if one did not know better or you were not born or in a coma during the 90s you would think that Newt’s opposition to Sotomayor was based soley or mainly on his principled belief system. However, that is not even remotely the case. Here you have a unelected person whom when he was Speaker of the House did absolutely nothing but go out his way to undermine the Clinton administration. He also committed fraud on the voters of America with the sham of a “Contract with America” which he made no effort what so ever of living up to. It was all bullsh*t. He also has a known history of doing the very things that he later criticizes others for doing. Newt is in this for himself.

Finally we also know that this hyprocrite while leading the charge to impeach Bill Clinton was at the same time cheating on and lying to his own wife and family and lying to the country by running constantly talking up family values that he himself did not believe in or practice. So when you link to Newt and cover his statements, people should be reminded of who he really is.

Time, among others, neglected to put Judge Sotomayor’s “Latina” comment in its context as a discussion of discrimination cases.

Our corporate media has totally failed us. Nutjobs like Newt and Rush are just the pimply face of the swamp.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1901348-4,00.html

Or a radical liberal activist who will cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity?
.
As opposed to conservatives, who embrace the divisive politics of race and gender identity in a different way — by celebrating and elevating the culture of white males to the end-all and be-all.
.
Seriously, how is it not “identity politics” when George W. Bush — he of Andover, Yale and Harvard — dressed up like a cowboy and clears brush with a chainsaw for the media’s loving glare? Or when he dressed up like a fighter pilot? Or strutted around in all his “commander in chief” flight jackets?
.
At least the “identity politics” of Judge Sotomayor are legitimate, in that she really is Hispanic and really is a woman. George W. Bush wasn’t really a macho cowboy, but because he played one on TV, it was deemed authentic. And certainly not an act of “identity politics.” Oh, no.

When a football player makes a late hit that knocks someone down, he can say, “I’m sorry,” or “Did that hurt?”
.
Newt’s “apology” was the latter.
.
(Note: Not saying that this is an injury. Glad to see Sotomayor on the Hill this week.)

msmollynd said: Nutjobs like Newt and Rush are just the pimply face of the swamp. Good one. Sadly true. KT is one of the best, and yet she opens with a headline that is, as sgw so clearly noted, untrue, follows it with a modifier “well sort of” to pull back from the brink. But those who just skim headlines will come away with ‘Newt is a reasonable guy’ – when he isn’t.
.
On the other side, this could be some great ninja work . Will Newt now have to disavow the revision that he didn’t actually revise to mollify the RW mouthbreathers? Will Rush call him out.
.
Inquiring minds and all that.

Funny how Newt and others can run around talking about race, but never is “they are playing the race card” associated or connected to their activities.

sgwhiteinfla Says:
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 8:27 am
“Sorry but in my mind that’s just a cuter way of implying that she is racist and sexist but that she just hides it well on the appellate court.”
.
Call it “cuter” or anything else you want to call it, but Sotomayor is a racist/sexist, and she has been hiding it wll on the appellate court.

Gingrich is being far more equivocal than Pelosi was about the CIA briefing, but no one in the media suggests that his circumlocutions affect his credibility. Instead, KT personifies the media’s take — Newt’s “apology” for his outrageous conduct permits the media to finally acknowledge how completely inappropriate Newt’s conduct has been while simultaneously forgiving Newt for his actions and forgetting they ever occurred.

The known is that Sotomayor will be confirmed. The unknown is how much damage the republicans are willing to self-inflict before this is all done.

The end times are near!
.
Friedman actually wrote something worth reading today.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/opinion/03friedman.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

A whole lot of the old crowd here this morning. Hi all. Hope the summer is getting off to a good start for you.
.
Nice to see you too, Kathy.

In KT’s defense, I believe that the headlines, for articles as well as blog posts, are written by the editors, not the reporters.
.
KT: is this true in this case? The lede of your post: “Well, sort of.” Implies that you are continuing the thought expressed in the headline. Please clarify.

Swampland has editors?

.
Enough, people. Judge Rusty has rendered his verdict.
.
Like Dr. Frist making a TV diagnosis, Judge Rusty doesn’t need evidence or court testimony…hearsay in an online search engine is just fine.
~

Funny thing about identity politics. I’m a WASP, male, grew up in relative comfort in the West – and yet I identify far more with Sotomayor and Obama than I do any of the WASP screamers like Buchanan and the disgraced former Speaker Newt. That’s because I identify with people who behave well, whose actions speak to a set of underlying principles that have positive value for society. Not with the color of their skin.
.
I suspect many of you here are the same. I identify with who people are.
.
And Newt, good ole Newt, is a cold blooded amphibian.

And I think Rusty has offered as much evidence as those relics who constantly get free non-confrontational face time and respect from the main stream media. I expect Rusty to be linked to and invited constantly on talking heads shows to express his views. But if I see one reporter challenge Rusty on his views, I’m calling double standard.

wvng – I, too, as white as Wonder bread with mayonnaise, find myself identifying more with Obama and Sotomayer than the right wing screamers. Maybe we’re getting closer to a colorblind society after all.

billiecat – it’s the “content of their characters.”
.
And, at the end of the day, it’s about empathy. Perhaps the RW is all up in arms about empathy because they don’t get it. Just as they apparently couldn’t get that the Colbert Report is satire.
.
Missing pieces. Nowhere to be found.

the people who are dwelling on a single sentence uttered in 2001 are in fact motivated by their own racial animosity and their desire to assert that Latino’s aren’t even allowed to refer to themselves as that, let alone assert that their heritage might actually -gasp- affect them in a positive way.
-
Too true, Paul. Was just thinking this morning how easy it is to be white and male– I never ever have to think about race or ethnicity, unless I darn well feel like it. Because I’m not a psychopath brimming with racial animus, as is Newt Gingrich.

This is the same sort of non-apology we’ve come to expect from pubic figures – “I’m sorry if my opening fire on that crowded school bus hurt anyone’s feelings.” Maybe some reporter should, you know, ask Gingrich directly about the plain contradictions in his statement, and see whether he’ll admit having been wrong/mean-spirited/defamatory in his statements on this matter. I mean, he doesn’t exactly avoid interviews these days.

i wrote the headline, with the qualifier (well, sort of…) to make it clear that this isn’t really an apology. you guys are not much for subtlety or irony, are you? i. was. making. fun. of. him.

About the update: How come the Washington Post can commit the necessary resources to a timely review of Sotomayor opinions, yet the Senate Republicans can’t? Shouldn’t someone suggest to them that this should take priority over fundraising trips back home, or photo ops with the local Silage Queen, or pretty much anything else? Unless they want to cop to running a Franken/Coleman strategy they need to roll up their sleeves and git ‘er done. If they need more staff I suspect there’s a whole new graduating class at Regent University “Law School” available.

“you guys are not much for subtlety or irony, are you?”
.
No. We are too busy menstrating.

What do Newt’s comments say about his respect for the other eight justices? His comments are as if Judge Sotomayor would run the whole Supreme Court. Is not the court and its decisions served by the 9 degrees of separation on any single issue?

Does he not respect the intelligence of an avowed conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts’ ability to articulate a constitutionally based argument on a legal issue before the court?

His comments and those of his cohorts disrespect all the justices on the bench, but none more than his own conservative appointments. Is Judge Sotomayor so strong and intellgent that she can argumentally dominate and crush any limp-wrist conservative viewpont? Hmmm…having written those words maybe Newt the salamander does have a point.

And the meme catches on…
.
http://twitter.com/ricksanchezcnn/status/2016485365

gunny: okay, you ARE much for subtlety and irony.

KT: you guys are not much for subtlety or irony, are you?
.
Yes, we are. The problem is that much of the world is not, and much of the world skims headlines. And much of the RW looks for anything to use out of conext to majke the point they want to make, true or not (see: Yikes! Did Obama Really Call America A Muslim Country? Nope. ).
.
Anyone willing to bet that KT’s headline gets picked up and used “even the flaming liberal KT recognizes that Newt is a reasonable man” . . .

Of course, we won’t see any Dems apologizing for calling Pickering a racist, or John Ashcroft (because he opposed Ronnie White) . . . .
.
The issue with Sotomayor is more than just a stray comment. First of all, a sitting judge should NEVER make a comment which links the race of the judge to the quality of his or her work. It’s ugly. Al Campanis didn’t get a second chance when he talked about African-Americans not having the “necessities”. Should Sotomayor? Second of all, we can look at her work. Two cases leap to mind–the first is a mind-boggling dissent wherein she suggested that states don’t have the right to disenfranchise prison inmates because of the difference between the racial breakdown in the general population and the prison system. The second is Ricci. In Ricci, a case where race was at the forefront and with novel issues, she decided to summarily dispose of the case, something which was very very problematic, as it suggests (a) the firefighters didn’t get a fair shake and (b) Sotomayor was trying to make the case less likely to be reviewed. When you make racialist comments (which she has acknowledged were problematic), you cannot expect people to ascribe benign motives to your actions.

Pee Wee Herman defense.

I just love to read the left-wing nutjobs on here justify a clearly racial statement from Sotomayor. She sees anyone other than “Latina” as the only person who can really “judge” a situation or person. In her own words, least we not forget, “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.” This may or may not be true, time on the bench will be that judge.
.
Double standard? Absolutely. In our country today, you are not allowed by the far left liberal extremists identified on this very site to be proud of your heritage or culture. Making any statements of being white and proud of it, brands you as a racist. However, I do agree with her stance on her ethnicity and pride in her culture. As Obama said himself, “it was a poor choice of words”. She seems to be very proud of her heritage as a “latina Woman”. It just seems to me that she is also very arrogant to believe that she is the epitomy of judicial correctness, just because she is a latina woman.
.
So put that in your puff rice pipe and smoke it liberal loons.

“So put that in your puff rice pipe and smoke it liberal loons.”
.
Rusty, no liberal smokes puff rice. Its Mary Jane or nothing.

“When they have nothing else to go on they’ll just call you racist”
.
That’s rusty……too many times to count…
.
Funny how quickly he goes to the same well when it suits him.

KT – oh well, at least we understand Colbert’s satire.
.
Newt’s not much for irony either. He says The word “racist” should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable . So when others acknowledge that Sotomayor “should have” used different words it means the words she used were “unacceptable.” But when Newt “should not have” applied the word “racist” to Sotomayor, it doesn’t mean the word was unacceptable.
.
Can’t wait to see Newt try to reinsert himself into the conversation in the age of google.

Oddly enough, in all the cases that spob thinks are problems, it’s because Sotomayor was folowing the law as laid out before her instead of trying to bend it to fit with the desired results that she’s being complained about. In other words, its her failure to legislate from the bench or be an activist judge that is the core of her problem.
.

Alito said, during his confirmation hearings– not in a speech given 10 years before his nomination– that he was mindful of his family’s history as Italian immigrants when he heard certain cases. No one cared.
-
But because white conservatives (but I repeat myself…) are obsessed with race, they cannot stop their hategasm over one sentence from one speech ten years ago by Sotomayor. They’re certainly not about to read any of her opinions (ie, her dissent in Pappas).
-
Double standard, indeed.

PD, once again, I must ask whether you got dropped on your head as a child. While I disagree with the result in the Ricci case, that’s not what I am getting at. The point is that the case was important and had novel legal issues–therefore, the decision to not publish it was indefensible.
.
And PD, it looks like her view isn’t going to carry the day with the Supreme Court, and no, the Court will not be changing the law. Race-conscious state action still triggers strict scrutiny analysis.
.
In any event, I will pose the question I have posed. Was New Haven’s treatment of these firefighters consonant with Obama’s ballyhooed speech on race?
.
By the way, anyone who thinks that states cannot disenfranchise prison inmates due to federal law is a LIBERAL.

Paul D, Waldman wrote an excellent piece at TAP on the coded meaning of “judicial activism” titled: Judicial Abstraction
.
As has been noted many times before, a “judicial activist” is a judge who makes a ruling you don’t like. Those who have attempted to quantify activism, by defining it as the propensity to strike down laws or regulations, for instance, have found that it’s the conservative justices who are the most “activist.” But the charge was always meant to be a dog whistle, a signal that only certain people were supposed to understand. To the conservative base, the charge that a judge appointed by a Democrat was a judicial activist meant that he or she would favor affirmative action, worker protections, equal rights for gays, the separation of church and state, and above all, Roe v. Wade. At the same time, the formulation was intended to say to the outside world that conservatives weren’t concerned about particular outcomes at all but merely wanted the judiciary to stick to the law and the Constitution and not “legislate from the bench.”
.
The problem with dog-whistle politics, however, is that it doesn’t have the power to persuade those whose ears aren’t attuned to the whistle. And anyone who will recoil in fear when told that Sonia Sotomayor is a “judicial activist” was opposed to her before they even knew who she was.
.
Conservatives have gotten so used to talking in code that they’ve forgotten who their audience is.

And here’s some food for thought for the press people. It’s plainly obvious that had a white male said anything remotely close to what Sotomayor said, the uproar would be huge. Now maybe that’s the way it is etc., but certainly the phenomenon needs to be reported and questions need to be asked about it. But they’re not.

Christy Hardin Smith has some thoughts on all this.

wvng, how is Roe v. Wade defensible, other than “we like the result” . . . .

KT, here is an accurate headline, from Think Progress: Gingrich pretends to apologize to Sotomayor…and then claims that she betrayed America’s values.

spob’s dumber than a warm rock on a windowsill.
.
How’s that for dialogue?
.
I’m sure that with Cheney supporting the LGBT cause and Gingrich apologizing for calling her a racist, spob and rusty’s worlds have lurched violently to the left, and are listing in that direction at an angle of at least 8 degrees from the horizontal.
.
Balls, small chew toys, and other paraphenalia in their world are rolling resolutely that way, and it has become extremely hard to swagger that right hand swagger of theirs.

As much as it might pain Rusty, et al I strongly suggest getting some actual facts on Sotomayor and her court decisions instead of sounding like “dittoheads.” Here’s a link that will give you a analysis of 50 of her 100 decisions in discrimination cases that have come before her. The next 50 cases, the analysis is on going.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/default.aspx

In other news, a racist apologizes from calling someone Newt Gingrich.

…extremely hard to swagger that right hand swagger of theirs. Now that’s a coded dogwhistle I can understand. Good one!

“spob’s dumber than a warm rock on a windowsill.” No 53_3, you’re the idiot. You cannot defend the prison inmates can vote or the summary disposition of the Ricci case, so you name call. When I name call, I do more than just name call SFB.

You can catch a buzz by smoking puff rice? The scientist in me needs to conduct a quick experiment. Brb.

And by the way, even Sotomayor said that she shouldn’t have said that . . . . racialism and judging don’t mix.
.
And my question still stands, how is the treatment of the firefighters consonant with Obama’s speech on race–funny how you guys cannot answer that.

spob waxes nostalgic about Charles Pickering, a man who supported the racist Mississippi Regular Democrats. The Regular Democrats were those who refused to seat Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Party at the Democratic National Convention, for hose interested in Pickering’s history.
.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/12/pickering/print.html
.
spob wants the face of the GOP to be people like Pickering and Jeff Sessions. He and rusty feel that expressing their Whiteness is being suppressed. David Duke feels their pain.

So here’s what I’ve learned about Sotomayor since her nomination:
.

Republicans think she’s racist.
Republicans think she’s stupid.
Republicans think she is a radical activist judge.
Republicans think she is too emotional.
Republicans think her name is pronounced funny.
Republicans think she is an affirmative action pick.
Republicans think she probably didn’t do well at Princeton.
Republicans bray at the moon.

.
But enough about Judge Sotomayor. Let’s have some news stories about Republicans.
.
More seriously: I’m glad some reporting about Sotomayor’s actual record is starting to creep in at the margins (the Marcus piece you link; and Greenwald’s recent posts).

Now Spob, Swampland’s resident legal analyst, compares opposition to Sotomayor to opposition to Pickering. I am sure that Spob was totally opposed to Pickering.

So according to Newt, his use of the term “racist” was a heat of the momnent twitter. What about his follow up fund raising email? I suppose that was also a heat of the moment thing.

See MS Post:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/29/newt-gingrich-doubles-down-on-sotomayor-racist-claim/

The bigger issue is why much of the MSM continues to play dumb over Sotomayor’s “wise Latina quote.” See Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200906020003

how is the treatment of the firefighters consonant with Obama’s speech on race
.
Because the things a President says in a speech have absolutely no bearing on the law. You might as well ask how this year Emmy award results are consonant with air safety.

Remember, in she speech, when she said that she would make better judicial decisions because of her background, she was referring to one case in particular, namely the case of Buck v. Bell (1927). That case, presided over by Oliver Wendell Holmes and whom she regarded as great justice, upheld the law of compulory sterilization for the mentally disabled. It is my understanding that she felt as a woman and as a Hispanic, she would have reached a different conclusion in that case.

[...] MEAN to call Sotomayor a racist.  Just that what she SAID was racist.  Won’t happen [...]

PD, you really are an idiot. New Haven didn’t have to toss the test results. New Haven could have decided that the results were what they were and defended them. It may surprise you that one branch of the service (US Navy) has advancement exams for enlisted promotions. Why is it so remarkable for firefighters in New Haven?

Try a legal analysis that puts the conclusion at the end, not the beginning. Just for a change.

FO, I am not writing a brief. She has a problem with disenfranchising prison inmates, for Pete’s sake. If that’s not a liberal judge, I don’t know what is.

Could we possibly have an intelligent discussion about this subject without calling each other “morons” and “idiots” and “dumber”?
.
This sort of food-fighting is why commentary is ignored by mainstream publication blogs.
.
Can’t we do better than name-calling?
.
I know that you commenters have good arguments; it would be really super if I didn’t have to wade through acrimony to figure out what they are.
.
…Just in case anybody cares…

Because apparently the Navy’s tests don’t yield results that create a suspicion of illegal bias.
.
There is such a thing as unjust laws. Unfortunately their being unjust is an inadequate reason to strike them down unless they’re also clearly unconstitutional. Judges are required to look at what’s in front of them, not what result would make people happy.

Can’t we do better than name-calling?
.
Nope.
.
This has been another is a series of brief replies to direct questions.

“in a series” aarrgghh

She has a problem with disenfranchising prison inmates
.
From Wiki re the Voting Rights Act:
.
Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required.
.
Again, her point was that a straight reading of the law led to an inevitable conclusion and that it was up to Congress not the courts to set things right.
.
Again, the exact opposite of judicial activism.

You know, spob, you’re probably right.
-
I had thought that the fact that Sotomayor has a long record as a cautious, narrow judge, who voted with the majority in the panel and en banc sessions in Ricci, and dissented in Pappas to uphold the rights of a racist city employee all outweighed a line taken out of context from a speech ten years ago.
-
But your ceaseless repetition of the two facts you know about her has completely persuaded me.
-
So, a racist judge on the Supreme Court. Boy, we whites sure are in a lot of trouble. Gotta hang together.

“Because apparently the Navy’s tests don’t yield results that create a suspicion of illegal bias” and because the city of New Haven decided not to risk a lawsuit based on existing Civil Rights law that would have made such a lawsuit possible, or even likely. As I’m not a lawyer, here’s terh SCOTUSBlog: Sotomayor’s Record: The Ricci Effect. And: Judge Sotomayor and Race — Results from the Full Data Set. And: Judge Sotomayor and Race.

Newt’s “apology” lacked one critical element. That would be an actual apology. KT was making fun of him, just like everyone else should. Looking to Newt for wisdom and guidance is like getting makeup and fashion tips from Susan Boyle. You can do it, but does it really help? Newt may have believed his sycophants would see through his faux apology but that everyone else would be deceived into thinking he was sincere. Newt’s version of “judicial impartiality” means that unless you agree with him on every issue that you’re a radical. Gingrich is a representative face of the republican party today. It’s pretty ugly.

I meant to type fugly.

SZ: I agree that online food-fights are embarrassing. That said, I refuse to dignify 90% of what passes for “legal analysis” of Sotomayor’s judicial record.
.
I don’t expect those who disagree with Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy to cheer her selection. To the extent one can place any judge who has to decide a myriad of legal issues on a linear legal-political spectrum, Sotomayor is comfortably center to center-left. So, there are legitimate grounds for objecting to her selection.
.
What I take issue with is using arguments that insult my intelligence (e.g. Spob’s laughable and uninformed arguments regarding Ricci).
.
I also take issue with disingenuous arguments (e.g. Spob claiming that the Ricci decision was not “consonant with Obama’s speech on race” when (a) Republicans couldn’t give a flying f— what Obama thinks about race issues and (b) Republicans are simultaneously accusing Sotomayor of wanting to “make policy” from the bench rather than following the law.

Do you know who Newt should be parading out there? That poor, white, passed-over male jurist who:
.
-Graduated from an Ivy League school
-Edited a law review at another Ivy League school
-Has tons of experience prosecuting criminals
-Has tons of private law experience
-Has worked as an appellate judge for more than 10 years
-Has authored over more than 400 opinions as an appellate judge
-Saved an all-American pastime
-Was nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents
-Is completely devoid of empathy
-Interprets the Constitution through an agrarian, non-industrialized, ethnically and culturally homogeneous lens.
.
Where is he? Shouldn’t he be speaking out instead of Newt?
.

spob – it is not that we “can’t” answer your charges, it’s that there has never been any evidence that it was worth the time it would take to do it. Can you give us an example when the discourse here changed your mind about any little thing?

Let’s get real here. People who oppose President Obama decided to use some excuse – any excuse – to oppose anyone he nominated to the Court. The voters, however, knew what they were getting when they voted in November.

The current faux controversy is all heat, no light. Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, and attempts to demonize the president and his nominee are frivolous exercises in self-interest. Move on.

TeeHee: Rush: Newt Can Retract Sotomayor “Racist” Claim, But I’m Not Retracting Squat (Greg Sargent)

This is probably just wishful thinking on my part, but I’d like for Sotomayor to take a long hard look at the people judging her before and during the confirmation hearings and decide that a little judical activism is just what the country needs to put it back on the right path.

[...] take better heed of the difference between the two now but i kind of doubt it. Try this link Newt Gingrich Apologizes For Calling Sotomayor ARacist – Swampland – TIME.com or this one The Gaggle : Gingrich Apologizes for Calling Sotomayor a Racist Both sites quote [...]

.
stuartzechman Says:
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 11:59 am

Could we possibly have an intelligent discussion about this subject without calling each other “morons” and “idiots” and “dumber”?
.
Perhaps we could, sz, if each side had legitimate points to argue.
.
However, all one side has can be summed up here.
.
They’ve got nothing, they’re ridiculous funny, and they spent the last 8 years driving this country (and plenty of the rest of the world) over a cliff. I’d say merely pointing and laughing is being charitable.
~

sqr1, can you read? (e.g. Spob claiming that the Ricci decision was not “consonant with Obama’s speech on race”)–guess what, genius, I wasn’t talking about the 2d Circuit’s decision, I was talking about what New Haven did–something painfully obvious.
.
sqr1, you cant defend the prison inmates can vote BS, can you.
.
or are you still trying to figure out that big legal issue arising from obama visiting troops

Ah, that Newt. He’s still the same lovely little weasel he was back when he was wrestling with Clinton for the Soul Of America. All this “backtracking” means is that he hasn’t yet given up on a future in politics and he doesn’t think he has a future in Rabid Radio.

pd, the issue is whether felon disenfranchisement laws result in discrimination by race–they don’t, and only an activist hack would think so

and pd, they took a test–the test was designed specifically to be non-biased–that the results werent what people wanted doesnt make the test illegal, genius

Paul Dirks Says:
” .. the people who are dwelling on a single sentence uttered in 2001 are in fact motivated by their own racial animosity …”

Let us try an approach that these neo-cons were so eager to apply on Saddam – prove the negative:
Can Newt prove to us that he is NOT a racist?
Note: The answer “Some of my good friends are NOT racist” has been used before – and does not, so to speak, a proof provide.

Is it curious, but certainly in character, what the Republicans (GOPs?} choose to ignore!
The sentence in contention is so choke-full with qualifications that on close scrutiny one wonders whether those brain-dead GOPs are gainfully employed anywhere.
Racists, anti-semites, anti-Arabists, anti-jihadists, anti-crusadists, anti-Africans, anti-feminists, .. are SURE about their convictions. Consider the sentence:

“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,”

The din from the GOPs would make one think that she made a definitive ruling on something.

spob Says:
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 1:50 pm

pd, the issue is whether felon disenfranchisement laws result in discrimination by race–they don’t, and only an activist hack would think so
=================================================
.
Funny, an activist hack named Katherine Harris used Florida’s felon law to help steal an election for G.W. Bush.
~

they don’t…
.
Simply asserting it doesn’t make it true. The relevant language includes ‘has the effect’ which it does.
The fact that drug laws in New York are selectively enforced resulting in discrimination in sentencing is an unavoidable part of the argument that you are also choosing to ignore.

Did the New Have test measure memorization or leadership skills? If the test was more about memorization than a lawsuit could have been filed by individuals who weren’t promoted if the test had been accepted by the city of New Haven.
.
Ricci, who is dyslexic, learns better by listening than reading. A friend was paid to read textbooks into audiotapes, for example. If the New Haven Fire Department wants memorization of the test, then just spell out that fact. But don’t leave the impression that firefighting skills may be better in someone passing the test, because the test does not test for that attribute.

PD, “The fact that drug laws in New York are selectively enforced resulting in discrimination in sentencing is an unavoidable part of the argument that you are also choosing to ignore.”
.
Then let them sue and make a 14th Amendment EPC claim.
.
PD, discrimination from a facially neutral disenfranchisement law specifically authorized by Constitution is a bridge too far. Any honest observer would concede that.
.
rmrd, a lawsuit could have been filed, so what? Are you saying that cities can toss tests designed to be neutral when they dont like the results?

Well, jeez, guys, I lived in a 99% minority neighborhood when I was a kid, should I be on Supreme Court?

guess what, genius, I wasn’t talking about the 2d Circuit’s decision, I was talking about what New Haven did–something painfully obvious.
.
Fair enough. But my point remains. Unless you are specifically endorsing Obama’s inherently liberal sentiments, then why do you care whether the City of New Haven is acting “consonant” with his statements? Is the GOP suddenly endorsing Obama’s views on race as a legitimate benchmark?
.
and pd, they took a test–the test was designed specifically to be non-biased–that the results werent what people wanted doesnt make the test illegal, genius
.
It is apparent, spob, that you don’t really understand employment discrimination law or the specific issues in the Ricci case. Which isn’t a big deal. Many people don’t really understand how it works. The problem is that when you try to attack an appellate judge as being not merely wrong, but egregiously wrong, biased, and prone to improper judicial behavior then you better come correct with a more sophisticated set of arguments than what you have presented.

spob my point was that the test may not have been the best measure for leadership skills.
.
Other questions do arise. Was testing in place when he New Haven FD was all-White, or were tests considered “necessary” when other ethnic groups arrived and complained that they weren’t being promoted by the “Good Old Boy System”?
.
When considering the results of the New Haven FD testing and looking at the techniques Ricci used, it is possible that Ricci (and other White firefighters) had access to knowledge about test taking techniques that others may not have had. To put it bluntly sometimes when you enter a situation as a minority and testing is involved, you as a minority may be provided with only an overview of what the test requires. Often you need people who have been through the system to really tell you what is, and what is not, important information as far as the test is concerned. You could have tons of information about the job, but may not be focused on what the particular test considers important.
.
The solution to the problem is to gain access to what topics are stressed by the test and focus on those issues. Institutions that have been closed to various ethnic groups may have structural barriers limiting passing on that type of information to more recently hired ethnic groups. Ricci’s behavior suggests that he had knowledge of what texts were important. Ricci also used flashcards indicating knowledge of what questions and topics were important.
.
spob, you may find it hard to believe, but sometimes ethnic groups entrenched in an institution like the New Haven FD may not share that type of information with newly arrived ethnic groups coming into the department.
.
The solution is to focus on building mentoring programs within the FD to foster passage of institutional knowledge regarding the test to minorities.
.
The test can be passed, if that is the point. The question remains if the test really measures leadership. It ialso does not address if the test was put in place only because different ethnic groups arrived on the scene.

Well, jeez, guys, I lived in a 99% minority neighborhood when I was a kid, should I be on Supreme Court?
.
No but it does help explain your severe resentment problem…..

Guys, am I dealing with a bunch of people ineligible for capital punishment under Atkins?
.
First, sqr1, and I wish you’d get it through your thick f’in skull, I have not leveled that much criticism at the result in Ricci (why should I, SCOTUS is going to toss the decision–I have also directed criticism at those who have said that New Haven’s actions were clearly constitutional), I have leveled criticism at how Sotomayor handled the case, i.e., that her and her colleagues on the panel clumsily tried to bury this weighty case by not publishing it. Thus, this idiotic comment: “The problem is that when you try to attack an appellate judge as being not merely wrong, but egregiously wrong, biased, and prone to improper judicial behavior then you better come correct with a more sophisticated set of arguments than what you have presented.” is completely off target. PD seems to labor under the view that disparity in results equates to illegal discrimination–the material you quote from me was directed at PD, not the ideologue on the Second Circuit.

Second, sqr1, the issue is not whether I share Obama’s views on race. I don’t. But certainly whether New Haven’s actions are consonant with the principles expressed in his speeched are relevant to the politics of this nomination. I find it hard to understand why you can’t simply answer the question.
.
Third, sqr1, I do know a fair bit about anti-discrimination law, particularly about race-conscious actions by state actors. Here, the city quite obviously acted in a race-conscious manner. Whether that was justified under law is to be seen.
.
rmrd, you sure assume a lot of things.

We have a process in place. Every nominee by a Republican the last 25 years has faced intense scrutiny, some clearly unfair and politically motivated. Why should it be different for Sotomayer? It shouldn’t. I suspect she will be fine and hold up through the process. If she doesn’t then it wasn’t meant to be.

PD, I doubt that. I defy you to point to anything that I have posted in here that can remotely be called racist.

I defy you to point to anything that I have posted in here that can remotely be called racist.
.
I’ve never suggested that anything you’ve ever posted is racist. But you certainly have a potent reverse-discrimination chip on your shoulder. Many of the people you share common cause with lack your finesse.

spob.
.
Did Charles Pickering support the Mississippi Regular Democrats?
.
Were the Regular Democrats a discriminatory organization?
.
Would Pickering have known that the Regular Democrats were discriminatory?
.
Was Charles Pickering racially biased?

rmrd, i’ll just let Medgar Evers’ brother speak for Pickering, and remember too he sent his kids to desegregated schools . . . .\
.
Plus, rmrd, Sotomayor said what she said while a sitting judge. . . .

I dont have a reverse-discrimination chip on my shoulder. I simply point out apparent double-standards and ask why. It is patently obvious that if a white male linked judicial performance to race, he’d be out of there. Now people can certainly make the argument that it matters less when a minority does it, but I’d like to see (a) people forthrightly admit it and (b) the press report that phenomenon. I also think that with respect to Sotomayor, some pretty tough questions need to be asked about whether her racialist statement manifested itself in her decisionmaking in the voting case or her decision to bury the Ricci case.
.
With respect to other posts, I find it funny that when I point out that Obama’s comments have shown a good deal less shall we say sensitivity than what would be expected from white males, I am pilloried as being stupid or racist or what have you. Now I don’t mind the attacks. I hit back. But it’s amazing to me that you guys can’t even deal with the points. And that leads me to believe that you know I am right.
.
PD’s comment is more of the same. It’s pathetic.

spob. Since you dodged the question, I’ll ask again and add others:
.
Did Charles Pickering support the Mississippi Regular Democrats?
.
Were the Regular Democrats a discriminatory organization?
.
Would Pickering have known that the Regular Democrats were discriminatory?
.
Was Charles Pickering racially biased?
.
I’ll also add the following:
.
Did Charles Evers, Medgar’s older brother, cooperate with the racist group the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission during the Civil rights era?
.
Did, Charle’s Evers, who managed to get elected mayor of mostly Black, Fayette, MS, get defeated by a platform of “We’ve seen what Fayette can do for one man. Now let’s see what one man can do for Fayette.”?
.
Again spob, don’t hide behind the words of one man. Did Pickering participate in the acts cited above or not? Yes, or No?

rmrd, I am not about to get into a sideshow over what Pickering did 40 years ago. The issue was that Dems twisted his judicial record and called him a racist with precious little support. Pickering was not racially biased, and many many people who dealt with him understood that and affirmed that. What I am pointing out is that the Dems did the exact same thing to Bush nominees and it was apparently ok with you guys, but when shoe is on other foot . . . .
.
You’ll note, of course, rmrd, that I have not been among those calling Sotomayor a racist. I merely said that referencing race and the quality of judicial output was a huge no-no, particularly for a sitting judge.

spob. There you go again. You introduced Pickering into the discussion. You said Pickering was not a racist. I merely asked questions about his known connection to the Mississippi Regular Democrats. Now you don’t want to address questions related to possible racial bias in the person you brought into the blog. A connection to the Regular Democrats would not be a “little” thing for a judge.
.
Republicans are free to keep on attacking Sotomayor. The more attacks, the more the Right Wing seems out of touch. I have no problem with that. Sotomayor should become a Supreme Court justice. The GOP will block vote against her, as expected.
.
When Alito says:

“And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

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.”
.
You see a strongly American story. when Sotomayor speaks of her ethnic background:
.
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
.
You see bias. Alito and Sotomayor are admitting that their upbringing effects decisions. Both strive to overcome bias by understanding the individuals before them in the courtroom

Pickering was pilloried by Dems, and now you guys get religion with Sotomayor. Come on. That’s my point. What Pickering did 40 years ago isn’t all that relevant.
.
Sotomayor has admitted that her comments were not so hot. So are you now defending what she no longer defends?

So let me get this straight–it’s bad for Newt Gingrich to call a judge on the Second Circuit “racist” because she linked race to the quality of decisions by judges, but it’s acceptable for Charlie Rangel to do this: http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0602hm.html
.
My oh my we have some double standards.

but it’s acceptable for Charlie Rangel to do this
.
That’s a pretty big straw man, no one here has been talking about Rangel that I’ve seen.

It’s not a straw man, Cliff. It’s just an observation. If what Newt has said is appalling (and many commenters here think it is), then what of Rangel’s comments? Are senior black elected officials subject to a lower standard than out-of-office white ones?
.
I’m just askin’.

spob,
We don’t live in NYC. We have no particular reason to pay attention to your Congresscritter. Unlike you, we don’t waste our lives obsessing over other people racism or lack therof.
The subject has only come up due to the SCOTUS nomination.
.
We can all agree that Rangel made grossly inappropriate comments and is indeed exploiting a tragedy to heighten racial animosity.
.
But it’s utterly irrelevant to anybody. It’s not related to the current conversation and you’ve only thrown it out as a deliberate malicious distraction.

“We can all agree that Rangel made grossly inappropriate comments and is indeed exploiting a tragedy to heighten racial animosity.”
.
And so where is the press? Is there a double-standard at play?

spob. Since we are going off in tangents, let’s focus on Heather MacDonald. It’s at least as valid as bringing up Charlie Rangel in this discussion about Sotomayor. Here is Ms MacDonald displaying her maternalistic view of the impact of gay marriage on African-Americans:

” If the black illegitimacy rate were not nearly three times the rate of whites’, I would have few qualms about gay marriage. Or if someone can guarantee that widespread gay marriage would not further erode the expectation among blacks that marriage is the proper context for raising children, I would also not worry. But no one can make that guarantee.
.
Why might it further depress the black marriage rate? There is a logical reason and a visceral reason. First, it sends the signal that marriage is simply about numbers: it is an institution that binds two (for the moment) people who are in love. It erases completely the significance that marriage is THE context in which the children of biological parents should be raised. And there are undoubtedly many other subtle meanings and effects of gay marriage that we cannot even imagine at the moment—which institutional shift is something that conservatives should be most attuned to.
.
As for the visceral reason: It is no secret that resistance to homosexuality is highest among the black population (though probably other ethnic minorities are close contenders). I fear that it will be harder than usual to persuade black men of the obligation to marry the mother of their children if the inevitable media saturation coverage associates marriage with homosexuals. Is the availability of homosexual marriage a valid reason to shun the institution? No, but that doesn’t make the reaction any less likely.
.
What are the chances that gay marriage would further doom marriage among blacks? I don’t know. Again, if someone can persuade me that the chances are zero, then I would be much more sanguine. But anything more than zero, I am reluctant to risk.”
.
http://usjamerica.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/are-black-people-really-that-obsessed-with-gay-marriage/
.
You travel in strange company spob.

She makes a valid point. Illegitimacy is a huge problem in American society today.
.
How much gay marriage would affect black marriage rates is unknown, but it’s something to think about.
.
My point of course with Rangel is the blatant doublestandardism, a point which you choose not to address.

Gay marriage is a threat to illegitimacy rates and the state of Black marriage? African-Americans are so homophobic that they will reject marriage because gay people are getting married? Am I interpreting you correctly spob? Gays will be responsible for Black illegitimacy rates in the future?
.
When you complain about points you raise that have not gotten a response, please remember that you brought Charles Pickering into the discussion, then stated that you refused to talk about why Pickering was viewed with suspicion on issues of race. I’ll make a deal with you, answer the following questions about Pickering, and I’ll address your question about Rangel:
.
Did Charles Pickering support the Mississippi Regular Democrats?
.
Were the Regular Democrats a discriminatory organization?
.
Would Pickering have known that the Regular Democrats were discriminatory?
.
Was Charles Pickering racially biased?
.
Thank you, in advance, for addressing my questions about Gay marriage and Charles Pickering.

[...] wanted to be fair – which apparently he doesn’t – he would have included a small note that Gingrich apologized for the "racist" tag on [...]

[...] wanted to be fair – which apparently he doesn’t – he would have included a small note that Gingrich apologized for the "racist" tag on [...]

[...] wanted to be fair – which apparently he doesn’t – he would have included a small note that Gingrich apologized for the "racist" tag on [...]

[...] wanted to be fair – which apparently he doesn’t – he would have included a small note that Gingrich apologized for the "racist" tag on [...]

[...] If Gingrich thinks Sotomayor is going to have trouble putting aside “divisive politics of race and gender identity,” perhaps he can offer her a few pointers. After all, its something that Gingrich has apparently struggled with in the past. (H/T: Karen Tumulty) [...]