Gingrich withdraws 'racist' tag on Sotomayor

"I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

See the difference?

She is a racist. Her membership in La Raza is something that needs to come up, and will.

if a member of the GOP made the same comments as her, they would be labelled a racist. why is racism a term that cannot be used against liberals? SHE IS A RACIST, and personally I'll never take back that comment (and of course, no one cares what i think anyway).

the GOP will continue to lose supporters if it doesn't show strength. Stepping back from calling 'a duck a duck' just because most of the weenies in the GOP think they might lose some latino votes is a good reason why they do continue to lose support from the right/middle.

All judge committed to the law alright, but do they follow the law of justice?
if A take B to court, A always win, even B should, becuse the judge like whoever for court that's not justice. not even law to me.

"Is judicial impartiality no longer a quality we can and should demand from our Supreme Court Justices?"

And that is the issue at hand. Democrats no longer care, all they want is social change regardless of how it is attained, the Constitution be damned.

No apology necessary. Her "Latina" comment was not only racist but sexist as well. There is no place for someone like her on the Supreme Court.

Rassmussen poll (today) - just 41% favor confirming Sotomayor.

How ridiculous of Gingrich. Everyone knows by definition you are only racist if you make a statement like that about a Black person or a Latino, This is why you have a congress which makes special rights for special folks.

Gingrich's backing down from the truth is one reason why people are sick of Republicans. For crying out loud, get a backbone Newt! What is your problem? The media is never going to like you so why do you placate them? We do not need a sheepish version of the Democrat Party as an alternative.

What the woman said was racist. She belongs to a racist hate group La Raza. Can you imagine what the media would be doing to Newt if he said that Sotomayer was unqualified strictly because she was a woman or a Hispanic?

Newt Gingrich - pseudo-conservative WUSS

Her words: "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."

Funny...as a white guy of Catholic background and European heritage, I feel I can reach a better conclusion that pretty much everybody too. So I honestly have no problem with her statement.

While she may not be a racist, she surely is a racialist. Notions of empathy for particular individuals based on belonging to a particular group violates a Supreme Court Justice's oath, "without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Her past decisions call into question her respect for equal protection under the law for particular individuals. She'll get in as we are, in fact, " a nation of cowards" when discussing matters of race.
Newt Gingrich is and always shall be a blowhard. This is hardly news. The story of a radical islamist who assasinated a new army recruit in Arkansas is. But let's not go there, in the spirit of change.

discuss race

Newt caved?????

Seems the Republicans never had a problem with her before but because her nomination is from Obama then she's a socialist along with being a racist, right?

Don't forget Newt is the person who served his wife divorce papers when she was in the hospital for cancer treatment.

Note that people are tired of Republicans because they cater to stupid people. They're great at name calling but very very poor at that part of politics called governing.

to "justice, fair" (comment #4) - what in the world are you talking about !? that makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever...

Having read the full speech in which the offending remark was taken, I found that one statement ("a better decision") was inconsistent with the thoughts in the rest of the speech. She discussed how our varied backgrounds lead us all to have a different perspective on issues, but no where else in that speech did she infer that any one perspective was better than another.

So I believe she misspoke, as Mr. Gingrich now admits he did.

Big deal.

Have ANY of you actually read the text of the speech? Not just the one line, when taken out of context, admittedly sounds awful?

Cue the usual feminazis and emasculated liberal male types to comment and tell us white men to "get over it" and "stop whining" and mention "white male privilege" over and over and over again....Principles and uniform application of ideals (such as a colorblind society) are two things the liberal mindset cannot comprehend.......

Gingrich shouldn't have backed down, but he's toeing the party line, since the Republicans are already in trouble with the emerging hispanic population, and the illegal immigrants' children who will be voting in large numbers soon. The problem is Republicans will never win that vote. Democrats have locked up power indefinitely by selling out to the lowest common denominator. The chaos and civil war will occur when the have-nots and layabouts overwhelmingly outnumber the working tax paying bloc and the entire system collapses......The balance has already tipped its only a matter of time. Goodbye America. Thank you liberal Democrats for giving away my country.

With millions of illegals in this country and a black president promoting affirmative action through his first choosing of a judge, Sotomayer is exactly what this country does not need. Note that the usual issue of Roe V Wade did not even surface. This just goes to show where Obama's priorities are. She is nothing more than just another mistake for our country while Obama tries to fill his own blundering agenda. Childish remarks about an old former First Lady Mrs. Reagan typify his huge ego.

Is she really racist A'dumb'a?
You need to be sure of yourself before calling someone a racist.

Here's your quote:
"She is a racist. Her membership in La Raza is something that needs to come up, and will."

Posted by Odumba June 3, 09 10:46 AM

@smosh
in any context, the remarks are racist and sexist.

How could what she said be interpreted as racist? Methinks the GOP and mos of the posters here have no idea what the definition of racism is.

Meanwhile, we're still not sure Newt is a person.

Why, exactly, should anyone care what a philandering, hypocritical, disgraced has-been-ten-years-ago politician thinks? Seriously, why is NEWT GINGRICH's opinion NEWS? Why should ANYONE care what he thinks?

"realist" you are a facist pig. To all the other GOP idiots complaining out there....is this who you want to lead your party? Morons like "realist"? This is why you lost the election and will continue to lose. Human evolution has passed you by. The GOP is nothing but a white-men-only club, long based on white supremacy, war-mongering and racism. You can say it's based on lower taxes and smaller govt but let's face it -- it isn't.

Here's a typical liberal hypocrite speaking:
"Note that people are tired of Republicans because they cater to stupid people. They're great at name calling but very very poor at that part of politics called governing. "

Slams Republicans for being name callers as he calls Republicans names. Then he displays his own stupidity by claiming governing is part of politics.

He takes a page from the Obama book of doublespeak where in one speech Obama worries about the debt as tells us how he is going to increase government spending by trilions.

it's good to see that our nation, after centuries of promoting white is right, maybe is humbly realizing sometimes white is wrong. it's not racist to point this out, or cowardice to admit this, white people are not always better than people of other races, and sometimes, people of other races are better than white people. let's give other races a chance, it's the American way. this fear that we have of moving any power from the white race to other races, now that's racism.

realist -- you have a real sensationalized impression of Hispanic immigrants and an unhealthy obsession with emasculation. Are you trying to tell us something???

Junior -- do you have trouble sleeping at night? A person who grew up with nothing, went to Princeton on scholarship, graduated 2nd and summa cum laude, went to Yale Law where she served on the Yale Law Review which takes its articles blind to the author, served as a prosecutor for years, practiced corporate law for a few years, served as a District Court judge for years and an Appellate Court judge for many more is not a sound candidate to sit on the SCOTUS???
Stop listening to Rush and you might sleep better!

If everyone is equal before the law, why have there only been two women on the court and no hispanics? Sounds as if only white men (and a few black men) have been equal before the law during the history of the Supreme Court.

People are ridiculous... Alito echoed Sotomayer's sentiment almost exactly to a tee during his confirmation hearing, and nobody gave a crap. Everybodys panties are just in a bunch because you all want to blame everything wrong with the world on liberals. Pathetic. You see only what you want to see.

While Rasmussen has a 45% approval rating, Gallup has a 54% approval rating, and Rasmussen shows 88% believe she will be confirmed.

If any of you still suffer from the delusion that judicial impartiality is possible I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for you.

It's not whether judicial bias exists, it is what is the judicial bias at play. Judges are human, all humans are effected by bias, consciuosly or subconsciuosly. It doesn't disappear just because you wear a black robe.

And her "racist" remarks have been distorted and taken out of context.

As for La Raza, has anyone claiming that is a racist organization actually done even minimal research?

Do you even know there are two organizations referred to as La Raza, with very different agendas and views?

It takes only half a brain to find the whole speech online. It also takes only half a brain to find and look at Sotomayor's record (in which she voted for white racists when the case called for it).

Sadly, most of the posters in this thread lack even that minimum requirement.

With 24 hour cable news, blogging and "tweets" one thing that is sorely missing today is context. Under what context did Judge Sotomayor make her infamous statement regarding who is better at "reaching decisions" a "white man" or a "Latina woman"? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I beleive it was a symposium on racial discrimination. That being the case, maybe Judge Sotomayor does have a point that a Latina women may be better able to reach a good decisison because she may have witnessed either personally or in her community such discrimination. I fully understand the argument and believe it shouldn't matter; the law SHOULD be blind, but the point is that it may be more blind for one group than another.

Also, there was a case before the Supreme Court regarding the Constitutionality of burning a cross as a form of free speech. My understanding was that a majoirty of justices were going to rule that it is protected speech unitl the only member of the court who is African-American spoke to his fellow justices about how such "speech" affected him personally. It wasn't Marshall. It was Thomas.

Newt is just trying to make himself important--fact is he has no relevance for the GOP today. Its just crap..I never respected the guy for what he did to his wife, cheating on her and divorcing her when she had cancer. For that matter, don't have much respect for Lance Armstrong either even though everyone likes him...he did the same thing...Really Newt, go retire to Texas or something.

How come liberals say they misspoke and its no big deal. Jimmy the greek misspoke and he was fired. Jay Severin told the truth and he was suspended. Most liberals are nappy headed ho's

He said it, he meant it and she is....

Why must conservatives always apologize for telling the truth? The national media focuses on the conservative response to her words, but not her words themselves. Criticism of non-whites is automatically labeled as racism, and that of women as sexism, so we can't ask why Obama brought his children to a racist-run church, and we can't ask why Sotomayor said that her race and sex give her a leg up on white male judges. If a white person said "my white heritage gives me the necessary perspective to decide cases, because minorities don't have access to the richness of my experience," we all know that wouldn't fly, just like we all know that, had Senator McCain spent 5 minutes in a church that denounced non-whites that he'd have had to pull out of the race immediately, with no further discussion. And for those saying this line was taken out of context, please. In this speech, she also said that she is, "not so sure that I agree" that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases" (there's the sexism), and that, "whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences...gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging" (there's the racism - the phrase "inherent differences" sounds like something from David Duke). She clearly states that her gender and national origin is, and will continue to be, a factor in her legal decision making - how much clearer does she have to make it? She also said that "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see" - wrong, Ms. Sotomayor - competent judges don't have the prerogative to choose which facts to see - competent judges are obligated to consider all facts presented, and then weigh their relevance according to the statutes and precedents involved. She admits that she will choose which facts to see, and that her identity will fuel her decision making - is this acceptable? Should we not even discuss a prospective supreme court judge who is happy to use something other than legal education, experience, training and precedent to decide cases? How about the fact that she belongs to an organization whose name translates (because it's not in English) to "The Race" - isn't there a chance that this organization might be race-oriented? Might it be worth reassigning one of the dozen Globe reporters who have been assigned to cover Jay Severin full-time over the last month to look into someone whose decisions could affect all of us, as opposed to someone who talks on the radio? Obama is entitled to put a liberal on the bench, but not a racist specializing in identity politics.

Jane, there should be more hispanic and female Justices. And I applaud efforts to ensure their representation. What there should never ever be, in any judicial court in America is a judge openly stating that her gender and race will affect her interpretation of law. Period. End of story. All you liberal types know this deep down but you haven't the fortitude or honesty to admit it.

Hooray for an impartial Latina on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately Sotomayor is not that person, at least looking at her prior statements and some questionable judgements. Nominate that person and I'll applaud. Won't matter anyway she'll be rushed in with little questioning for the obvious reasons.

The last paragraph is telling. “The nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court was an historic and proud moment for Latinos in America,” Janet Murguía, president and CEO of the council, said in a statement. “But as proud as our community is over her nomination, we have been stunned and repelled by the visceral reaction it has generated among many in the Republican party.” Stunned and Repelled? Just imagine how those white males among us felt when we read her comments. The job of the Supreme Court is to prevent diviation from the US Constitution. There is no place for personal bias on the SCOTUS bench

Newt is an idiot. I'm surprised anyone is even paying attention to anything he says.

Can someone please explain to me why everything Gingrich says is deemed news worthy? I mean who cares what Newt thinks?

I belong to the Sons of Italy, and I'd wager that anyone in the Sons on any given night would agree that Italians are better than [insert your group here].

I don't see how a Latina woman saying something similar about her own group is so shocking. People pander to their own groups when talking to each other. What matters is her record on the bench - which is what the confirmation process is for. Have at her - but all this "oh my god, a racist!" talk is BS. Every group prefers their own. And there's nothing us Caucasians love more than whipping ourselves into a froth over "reverse racism". How about just stating it clear without hyperbole, "no preferential treatment for anyone (except for the rich)!"

Newt? Newt who?

There is no way on God's green earth that ANYONE could interpret the law in ANY way other than from his/her own experiences. It is our experiences that shape our belief systems. It is our belief systems that shape our interpretation of the law. The law is what it is - there's no doubt about that. But what it MEANS is an altogether different story. The fact is that without his/her experiences, a person would not be the person s/he is... he would be as an infant, a tabula rasa.

After 8 years of the GOP being in the dog house, all the talking heads are frothing at the mouth thinking that they have found the soft underbelly of the DFL. For Newt its only poor judgement, a trade off for some publicity, what does he have to loose. For Rush its only another day of repetitous negativism, venom laced slander and outright lies. Poor Newt, a newbie catholic and can't even tell a little white lie. If he is willing to tag her openly as a racist, just wonder what he is really thinking. Oh boy more special moments in the confessional. Just keep listening to Rush, he gets rich, you get duped. Live poor vote rich. Some day the light will come on.

No one can interpret the law other than through their own experiences, eh? So, if someone transports a minor across state lines (one of millions of possible examples), exactly what "wisdom" is imparted by the fact that Sotomayor ate "rice, beans and pork" (per her speech)? Perhaps there's some interstate quinceanera tradition that comes into play? Hmm? The fact is, belief systems have no place in the law; that's why non-racist judges (if we can assume most are) uphold the right of white supremacists to march - because they know that issues of law inform the decision, not whether or not whitey was mean to them when they were young, or whether their parents spoke Spanish or Italian. Sure, members of a group are fond of their group - but when you actually believe your race makes you a better judge, it's time for the public to discuss your qualifications. This logic flies over the head of liberals because the left only recognizes racism in its violent forms (slavery, lynching, etc.), in which the practitioner seeks to hurt people, whereas when the left sees someone trying to help people obtain jobs or education through quotas, programs or policies, they can't see that such things are, by definition, racist for favoring non-whites. No one believes Sotomayor will burn a cross on someone's lawn; we're simply stating the fact that she isn't race-blind, and that's worth discussing.