gingrich: Sotomayor 'racist,' should withdraw nomination

[spanone]

i know all du'ers were waiting for the newt to weigh in on ms Sotomayor..:sarcasm: ....he didn't disappoint


WASHINGTON (CNN) – Rush Limbaugh isn't the only one calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist. Newt Gingrich is, too — and he's demanding that Obama's pick to the Supreme Court withdraw her nomination.

On Twitter, Gingrich pointed to a line in Sotomayor's 2001 speech to a Hispanic group in Berkeley that has drawn fire from some conservatives.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Sotomayor said in that speech, describing how life experience can inform judicial opinions.

On Wednesday, Gingrich tweeted: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.' new racism is no better than old racism."

Moments later, he followed up with the message: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[Arkana]

1. Arkana: Gingrich 'assclown', should go pleasure himself with a rusty sewer pipe

[FSogol]

22. FSogol: Gingrich 'corrupt', should be in prison

[babylonsister]

2. Context is everything, newt...

http://washingtonindependent.com/44428/sotomayors-controversial-2002-comment-is-supported-by-recent-academic-studies


Sotomayor’s ‘Controversial’ Comments Backed Up By Academic Research

snip//

If, deprived of their context, these statements sound controversial, in the context of her lecture, titled “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” they made perfect sense.

Sotomayor’s view that judges are influenced by their background and experiences is backed up by studies that show that women judges, for example, tend to rule in a way that’s more sympathetic to plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases than male judges do — probably because, having experienced discrimination themselves as they struggled to advance in a male-dominated profession, they’re more attuned to its signs.

[spanone]

5. republics don't do 'context'...or nuance

[rurallib]

10. I am willing to bet that Republican senators vote on Sotomayor will

be colored by their world view.
Certainly corporate interests, raising campaign contributions and whether Rush will single them out before the rabid 'base' will be on their minds when they vote.

[babylonsister]

24. Everything anyone does is colored by their worldview.

Check out the brainstrust called Inhofe...and beware, old, opinionated white dude crossing...

Inhofe's Insulting Double "Standards"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...

INHOFE'S STANDARDS.... A whole lot of senators issued statements today in response to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination, and most were polite and inconsequential. Sen. James Inhofe's (R-Okla.) press release, however, stood out.

"Without doubt, Judge Sotomayor's personal life story is truly inspiring. I congratulate her on being nominated. As the U.S. Senate begins the confirmation process, I look forward to looking closer at her recent rulings and her judicial philosophy.

"Of primary concern to me is whether or not Judge Sotomayor follows the proper role of judges and refrains from legislating from the bench. Some of her recent comments on this matter have given me cause for great concern. In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences." {emphasis added}


Melinda Warner asked, "What does that even mean?" I've been wondering the same thing.

Inhofe, who no one has ever accused of being the sharpest tool in the shed, could have easily just made veiled references to Sotomayor's ideology, and wrapped it up by hinting at his inevitable opposition to her nomination. But the Oklahoma Republican just had to go the extra mile here, and introduce race and gender into the equation.

Chances are, from Inhofe's perspective, he wouldn't want a Supreme Court justice who allowed one's personal background to interfere with their legal judgment. But that's not what he said -- and it's certainly not a standard he's laid out for other high court nominees.

Put it this way: when was the last time James Inhofe questioned whether a white nominee for the federal bench had an ability to rule "without undue influence" from his race? Would he worry about the Vatican having "undue influence" over a Roman Catholic nominee? Has he ever checked to make sure a male nominee was not overly influenced by his gender?

The very idea, I suspect, would strike Inhofe as unnecessary, which is precisely the point. That it only occurs to him to ask this of Sotomayor, and not her contemporaries, reinforces the insulting double standard.

[InternalDialogue]

19. Thank you for the context.

My first thought on reading the OP was, "The key here is going to be on what she'd be 'better than' a white man at." Newt conveniently leaves that out.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. aww poor white men. my heart goes out to them. nt

[MineralMan]

4. Ah, the slimy salamander wants to spread it's slime again.

Newt Gingrich is the last person who should be addressing this nomination. Having resigned from the House in shame, he should return to his place under the slimy rock he inhabited for some time.

OTOH, he's sort of the perfect spokesreptile of the wingers.

[lpbk2713]

6. LOL ... Their only hope is for her to withdraw.

They know she's a shoo-in when it comes to a vote.


:rofl:

[MineralMan]

9. Right, and the failed wingers are out in force.

A cosmic fail for them. :bounce:

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. Another anti-christ. He used to be dead, didn't he?

[Lex]

14. Run out of DC for screwing his GF while wagging his smarmy finger at Bill Clinton

for the Monica affair.

What a republican turd he is.

[Johonny]

8. can't wait til he runs in 2012

[Lex]

11. Every time he opens his mouth, he sounds more and more stupid.

nt

[rurallib]

12. So if Judge Gingrich were to rule in a divorce case

let's say a woman whose husband left her flat while she was in the hospital with a deadly disease was suing him for half his holdings. Would Justice Gingrinch's decision in any way be colored by his experience?

[Birthmark]

13. Homelanders. What are you gonna do with them? eom

[AndyfromNC]

15. The only

news worth bit in this story is that Newt-ie actually uses Twitter, is seems appropriately named for his use.

[Lex]

16. sounds like it's going to eventually be his downfall

perhaps

[dflprincess]

17. He didn't call her a sexist as well?

Why does this guy get any attention from the media?

[sandnsea]

18. White Man doesn't have to say it

The fact that he can't recognize his own privilege says it every single day. It's unwritten and a wise white man knows it.

[gauguin57]

20. Hey Newt ... why don't you go find a wife to dump, post-cancer-surgery?

Oh ... sorry ... you've already done that.

Shut your effing piehole, Newtie.

[C_U_L8R]

21. Fall on your sword Newt

I want to hear the sickening "pop"

[calico1]

23. I'm sure she is writing her letter now...

:rofl:

[Smith_3]

25. Yeah, cause white men have a long history of being oppressed by latina women in america ...

:crazy:

[Bucky]

26. This is good news, actually. The rift between true believers and regular GOPs widens

The Republican senators face an ugly choice here:

(1) Vote for Sotomayor, an obviously reasonable nominee, and face the electoral & organizational wrath of the true believers in the party structure. When 2010 rolls around they'll either lack for enthusiastic campaigns in the fall or they'll be up-ended by right wing replacements in their state primaries, or...

(2) Vote against Sotomayor, thus pleasing the base but further isolating the party's mainstream from where most of the voting public is now. This choice will only cost them votes in November 2010 or open themselves up to charges of talk moderate in the fall while voting hard right back in Washington DC.

They're in a lose-lose situation