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 REJECTJUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!
Your friend,Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House
Renewing American LeadershipP.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.
-
1
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.
-
2
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." -
3
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 . . . -
4
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?).
~ -
5
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. -
6
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. -
7
Let's just not forget how smart he is, OK?
-
8
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?" -
9
MSM doubles down on steno role.
-
10
Too long; didn't read.
.
But I am so glad that Scherer didn't proclaim Newt's genius. -
11
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?
-
12
"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. -
13
Uncle Newt, can you tell us what "adultry" means? How about "resigned in shame?"
.
How about "permanent Republican minority"? -
14
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/ -
15
Pnnto - Newt is probably a racist, in that "Martian" would be a race and I understand that they hate Earthings.
-
16
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."
-
17
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? -
18
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.
.
-
19
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. -
20
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.
-
21
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 -
22
"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
-
23
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. -
24
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.
-
25
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/
Most Popular »
- "Personal Sins Should Not Require Press Releases"
- Congress's Tepid Reaction to Obama's Afghanistan Plan
- Tiger Speaks
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- The 'Alice' Interview: A Very Different Brand of Wonderland
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- The Dreaded X
- First Look: 'Lovely Bones' and Peter Jackson's Virtuoso Vistas
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- Rachel Uchitel: Tiger Woods' Alleged Affair Connection
- Europe's Secret Nuclear Weapons: What Should NATO Do?
- Can Attack Dogs Be Rehabilitated?
- Why Fritz Henderson Resigned as GM's CEO
- Ireland: Lack of New Catholic Priests Spurs Campaign
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell













RSS