It's no longer just about racial prejudices for Newt Gingrich, if in fact it was at first, as his initial, controversial tweet calling Sonia Sotomayor a "racist" indicated. Gingrich has since walked the statement back in an e-mail to supporters, correcting his application of the word "racist" to the judge herself, rather than her words, making a more comprehensive case against Sotomayor's nomination.
The former Speaker continued to flesh out his criticism in an op-ed this morning, listing questions the White House press corps should ask Robert Gibbs about President Obama's nominee:
» "You described Judge Sotomayor's 'wise Latina woman' statement in a 2001 speech as a 'poor word choice.' How do you do you explain this additional statement from her speech: 'Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.' Was this also a poor word choice? And if so, which word?"
» "Democrats, including Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., are circulating a 1994 speech by Judge Sotomayor in which she says this: 'Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that 'a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases' É I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. É I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.' "
Democrats claim that this 1994 statement by Sotomayor, from before she was confirmed by the Senate as a federal judge, proves that her views on race, gender and the law are uncontroversial. But doesn't the fact that she made virtually the same statement in two speeches seven years apart prove she wasn't simply exercising "poor word choice" in 2001? Doesn't it prove that the president was wrong when he said he was 'sure she would have restated it' if given the chance?"
» "In announcing Judge Sotomayor's nomination, President Obama mentioned that one of the qualities he looked for in a nominee was 'a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law.' In a 1996 article for the Suffolk University Law Review, Judge Sotomayor advocates a different view of the judiciary. She describes the legal system as an agent of 'radical change' and the law as 'indefinite,' 'uncertain,' and 'unpredictable.' Given the president's stated criterion for his Supreme Court nominee, do you believe that Judge Sotomayor also 'misspoke' in her 1996 law review article?"
» "President Obama has said repeatedly that 'words matter.' In 2008, Judge Sotomayor upheld a decision by the city of New Haven, Conn., to deny a promotion to firefighter Frank Ricci because of his race. Because no African-American firefighters had scored high enough on a qualifying exam to receive promotions, the city threw out the results of the test and promoted no one. Would the American people be mistaken in viewing this ruling, in light of Judge Sotomayor's repeated statements on race and gender and the law, as vindication of the president's view? Do Judge Sotomayor's words matter? Did they matter to Frank Ricci?"
All good questions. Let's hope they get asked -- and answered -- before the summer is out.
Sounds to me like Gingrich, having been forced to walk back his "racist" critique, is merely looking for reasons to justify his opposition to Sotomayor. (And it's worth noting that Gingrich still can't get away from the topic of race, as shown in the excerpt above.)
Also, as for Ricci vs. New Haven, as several legal experts have already pointed out, Sotomayor basically ruled that the law was not unconstitutional and thus should stand - a conservative ruling, by judicial standards. Or is Gingrich suggesting that judges should be "activist" and rewrite the law, but only when the law inconveniences white people?
In any case, none of the stuff mentioned in this article even comes close to disqualifying Sotomayor.
"Fleshing out" tends to mean adding content, not ad nauseam repetition of his original, race-baiting, point.
His last point doesn't even make sense. Sotomayor joined in a per curiam that didn't contain any analysis of the case (it only endorsed the District court's opinion) and did not write but rather joined an opinion that had to do with the procedural arguments behind choosing to rehear the case en banc or not. It's telling that Newt is saying "words matter" without quoting, you know, words. For someone who's supposedly the intellectual at the head of the party, this is some pretty backwards nonsense.
If that's the best you got Newt, get lost. I am sick and tired of parse "gotchas", and especially of Newts racism masked by absurd charges of racism. Apologize to Sotomajor, then go back to flogging your screed.
Personally I'm quite happy to see Gingrich twitter (in the old sense) from the sidelines. Apart from the 25% movement conservatives he's electoral poison and essentially assists the Sotamayor nomination every time he opens his mouth on the enemy of my enemy principle if nothing else. Go knock yourself out Newt.