Gingrich Takes Back Sotomayor "Racism" Comment

Newt Gingrich is not known for his verbal self-restraint. But even he thinks he went too far when he called Judge Sonia Sotomayor a racist in a Twitter post. In a Human Events column, the former Republican House Leader wrote:

My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word "racist" should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised Gingrich's move. "I'm very glad he backed off," Sessions told CNN. "I think that's unusual, that commentators do that, and I think it was very good that he did. I think that will help -- help us."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs swatted Gingrich last week for his "racist" comment. Asked about the accusation at a briefing, he said, "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."

Gingrich's concession could put pressure on Rush Limbaugh to back off his own assertions of Sotomayor's racism, which are already controversial in the GOP. Or it could open up another rift between these two conservative heavyweights.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[mh01]

10:03 PM on 06/03/2009

Apparently Sotomayor has been evolving. She used to be a run of the mill sexist.

Here’s what she said in the 1994 speech: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/exclusive-sotomayor-made-same-wise-latina-comment-in-1990s-and-no-one-objected/

“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. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

In 2001 she added the Latina part, her comment now smacks of sexism AND racism.

And, of course, having said it twice 7 years apart, its going to be pretty hard to argue that she didn't mean it, or that she chose her words poorly, or that she would say it differently if she had it to do over.

Wait, actually, she did say it differently when she had a chance to do it over, she added the racism part.

[jayhuff2086 052609]

12:40 AM on 06/04/2009

Why are many people calling Judge Sotomayor a racist?

Presumably, they are unwisely taking her comments in the 2001 Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture out of context.

She said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

The judge is contrasting two types of people. One is: 1) wise, 2) Latina, 3) a woman and 4) possesses rich experiences. The other: is 1) white, 2) male and 3) has not lived that life.

In the same lecture, she says, “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.”

Also, she spoke to race and gender issues, saying, “we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own.” Clearly, “race” and “gender” are not focuses of her concern.

With “gender,” “race” and “experiences” being accounted for, the only characteristic remaining is “wisdom.”

Along with her, I would hope that any wise person would more often than not come to better conclusions about anything than an unwise person…

[mh01]

10:45 AM on 06/04/2009

I would hope so too. However, her line is that because she is latina, with all the rich experiences that entails, she will make (more often than not) better decisions than a white male.

You can't remove race or sex from that comment, because race and sex are the subject of the comment, race and sex is THE reason for the comment. You can qualify the comment with other comments, which she did, and which is why I don't think she IS a racist, but I do think her comment smacks of racism (as defined, look at webster).

The comment as you say, compares two people, a wise latina, and white male. And that might be fine if it ended there. However it doesn't, and her conclusion is that the latina will more often than not make a better decision than a white male, because she is latina.

That is textbook racism.

I don't think it makes her a bad person, or even a racist, but to try to argue that specific comment is not racist is, frankly, impossible.

[Einstein44]

09:49 PM on 06/03/2009

The art of backpedaling made famous by the right wingers!

[mh01]

09:59 PM on 06/03/2009

Yeah, Obama and gibbs didn't backpedal on behalf of sotomayor at all.

Laughable.

[chronic]

11:54 PM on 06/03/2009

Prove it sparky!

[ConfuciusSay-]

08:19 PM on 06/03/2009

What we're seeing is the political weakness of the right.
They are unable to stop the confirmation.
They are hamstrung by the backlash from a big voter bloc.
They are indicted by the recent radical murder of Dr. Tillman, and cannot employ hate speech as before.

All they have been able to do is create soundbites that can be used against them in future elections.
There's no percentage in continuing a losing fight that will bleed you later too. Rush is backing down too. The battle has been already lost.

Obama handed them cowpies and they obligingly began to smack themselves in the face, but they are wising up.

[mh01]

09:47 PM on 06/03/2009

Nonsense. The only person indicted by the tiller murder is the man who pulled the trigger. Unless, of course, you care to take ownership of the all the violence at the last two republican national conventions? Of course you don't, because that was only a small portion of leftists out to cause havoc. Or perhaps you want to take credit for the recent shooting of two armed forces recruiters because of the culture of hate and anti-military you have created over the last 5 years? No, of course you wouldn't want to do that. And you would right not to take ownership of it, because expressing an opinion that you don't like does not make that opinion hate speech.

You may hate speech, but that doesn't make speech you disagree with "hate speech" no matter how hard you try.

Everyone agrees sotomayor will be confirmed. Yet, no one remembers how awfully the left treated judges like Bork, Estrada, and thomas, for no other reason than philosophical differneces.

If Sotomayor makes that comment as white man, you would all crucify him, and you know it

[chronic]

11:55 PM on 06/03/2009

Dream on tro//!

[oldandintheway1]

08:17 PM on 06/03/2009

I wonder if this all has anything to do with a recently released Fox poll , thats shows that 13% of republicans woudl support NEWT for Pres in 2012??

[TRYKER]

07:53 PM on 06/03/2009

A repulsive bigot attacks a woman Supreme Court Nominee as a racist, wonders why it isn't working... he is such a weasel. Newt only knows low.

[mh01]

09:51 PM on 06/03/2009

Why, i wonder, does Obama announce his supreme court pick, then have Gibbs go out and tell people to be very careful about how they criticze her?

I suspect its because he wants to cut off criticism, full well knowing that, true to lefty form, any questioning of a woman, or a minority, will give them an opening to call them a racist, sexist, bigot.

And the willing lap dogs will jump on board and pile on.

What sotomayor said was textbook racism. Does that make her a racist? No.

But you can't argue with words, they have meaning, remember, Obama told us that on the campaign trail.

[mh01]

07:41 PM on 06/03/2009

Webster defines racism as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

Sotomayors comment was: "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."

in other words, a wise latina woman would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male, because of her rich experience as a latina woman.

That certainly sounds a lot like, (at least part of) the definition of racism, "....racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".

Now, I certainly don't think that Sotomayor is a Racist, as a person, but her comment, it seems to me borders on being racism, as defined, meaning her comment suggests a superiority in ability to make decisions BECAUSE she is Latina.

For newt to call her a racist is innaccurate. For him to call her comment "racism" would have been closer to being accurate.

I would call newt's calling her a "racist" distasteful because its innaccurate. I would call Sotomayors comment distasteful because it appears to me to fit within the definition of "racism". (and sexism, but that's a story for another post)

[rad21]

07:31 PM on 06/03/2009

It amazes me that a professor, author, congressman and Speaker of the House should, without cause, self-explode on so often. Even his supporters critique Newt for this character flaw.

The problem is Newt has always had it both ways. Follow his comments on healthcare.

Now with blogs and video web-links, a two-faced hypocrite can be exposed easily.

[Lizaxyz]

07:28 PM on 06/03/2009

And you know Newt is already working on a new book about this to add to his repertoire... "I too am a Closet Racist in America" by Newt Gingrich

[Solja]

07:23 PM on 06/03/2009

Limberger is not going to alienate the farthest of the right. He will bring them into his world, making the rest of us in much more danger.

[fredisfred]

07:20 PM on 06/03/2009

We still don't care what you think, Newt.

[Midnightrain]

08:08 PM on 06/03/2009

But do remember he is attempting to replace RL as the intellectual force of his party.

[patrickgarret]

07:17 PM on 06/03/2009

Of course he did! AND WHO CARE. I WILL BET MY LIFE THIS KINDA OF REPUBLICAN CAN NEVER BE ELECTED AGAIN. Times have changed. People are OVER IT. If you're MODERATE, you might have a chance. I might even bet to say you need to be left of moderate. The Bush Administration was the best thing that EVER happened to my cause, the progressive cause.

[Lizaxyz]

07:14 PM on 06/03/2009

What a riot! Republicans worried about "other" people making racist remarks. What hypocrites!

[colibri1]

07:09 PM on 06/03/2009

Of course Gingrich and O'Reilly are backing off now. The accuse-to-deter part of the plan has worked. Part of right-wing strategy is to constantly scream that your targets are extremists or whatever, and then that helps keep the targets in line, afraid of appearing too "liberal" and getting attacked again. It'll work with Sotomayor, especially since she had a pretty right-leaning record already. This strategy has been working since the 80s. Democrats are still afraid of the word liberal because of it.

[Solja]

07:19 PM on 06/03/2009

It's not about being a Republican (conservative) or Democrat (Liberal). When speaking of a judge, the word "liberal" means how they interpret the law. A conservation reads what's on the paper, without applying real life common sense to the mix, alongside the law. A liberal judge reads the law and applies it with a dose of common sense. That's what this whole fight is about, a judge's interpretation of the laws. I'd rather have a judge that had some compassion or real world experiences but not so far into their world that it clouds their judgment. I think Sotomayor has struck the right balance. Most judges at her level no longer cast a vote in elections or give contributions to political campaigns. Most steer clear of politics altogether.

[mh01]

09:58 PM on 06/03/2009

I have no problem with compassion. but for justice to be truly justice, it must be blind. that means that if the law is on the side of one party, no matter how worthy of sympathy the other party is, the judge must rule in favor of the law, and check their empathy at the door.

That's our system.

[skymuffin]

07:28 PM on 06/03/2009

You've got a point, there. It DOES keep the Dems in line. They're a bunch of scaredycats, anyway.

[chronic]

11:57 PM on 06/03/2009

Um, did you witness the last two election cycles?

[snesich]

07:00 PM on 06/03/2009

Ha ha ha ha ha!

So Newt finally has to apologize and humble himself. Good. This is a textbook example of how and why progressives have to call these right-wingers on hate speech ASAP and demand accountability.

Also, the writer refers to Limbaugh and Gingrich as "these two conservative heavyweights." Isn't that an oxymoron? Unless, of course, you're referring to their body mass and waist measurements.

[loveobamas]

06:47 PM on 06/03/2009

You know, I think I know what scares the Right Wing even more than terrorists or economic crises... it's being rendered irrelevant. And as they continue to sink into the morass, they think the only way to reclaim that relevance is by trying to grab headlines by making some of the most asinine statements imaginable.

[chronic]

11:58 PM on 06/03/2009

You are very wise for your age.