Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor: You Read, You Decide

Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s now famous 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.”

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).

So it is to her words -- the ones quoted above and others -- to which we should turn, for they show that the issue here is not racial identity politics. Sotomayor’s words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law.

The Central Question: Is American Justice No Longer Blindfolded?

The fundamental issue at stake in the Sotomayor discussion or nomination is not her background or her gender but an issue that has implications far beyond this judge and this nomination: Is judicial impartiality no longer a quality we can and should demand from our Supreme Court Justices?

President Obama apparently thinks so. Other presidents, Republican and Democrat, have considered race and gender in making judicial appointments in the past. But none have explicitly advocated the notion that judges should substitute their personal experiences for impartiality in deciding cases. And certainly none have asserted that their ethnicity, race or gender would make them a better judge over a judge from a different background.

Here is how President Obama explained his criteria for appointing judges earlier this year:

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

No Group Has Benefited More From Impartial Justice Than the Less Fortunate

With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this.

We understand that the job of a justice is to enforce the law, not the rule of empathy. And we understand that when a judge substitutes his or her personal experiences for the law, the law becomes what he or she wants it to be, not what the people, through their elected representatives, have decided it should be.

Most tragically, it is this principle of judicial impartiality -- of justice, not just for the rich and the powerful, but for all -- that has most benefited the vulnerable and the downtrodden in America.

No group has needed or continues to need justice -- that can’t be predetermined by wealth or privilege -- as much as the less privileged. President Obama doesn’t seem to grasp that, by weakening judges’ adherence to the rule of law, he is also weakening the very foundation of equal justice for the less fortunate Americans he wants to help.

The “Court of Appeals is Where Policy Is Made”

How does Judge Sotomayor come down on the issue of a judge’s fidelity to the law?

Here is what she told a Duke University Law School audience in 2005 (emphasis mine):

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating.”

Is Judge Sotomayor Being Quoted Out of Context? You Read, You Decide

If Judge Sotomayor, by her own words, believes the judge’s bench is “where policy is made,” what kind of law can we expect her to make as a Supreme Court Justice?

The Berkeley Law School speech in which Judge Sotomayor made the comments that I quoted at the outset of this newsletter -- that a “wise Latina” would make a better judge than a white male -- has been widely cited.

The White House is now claiming that critics are taking Judge Sotomayor’s comments in that speech out of context. So in the spirit of “you read, you decide” I am linking here to Judge Sotomayor’s speech in full.

As you read it, see if you agree with those respected legal scholars who have concluded that the speech as a whole isn’t as damaging as the Judge’s “wise Latina” comment -- it’s worse.

“Our Gender and National Origins May and Will Make a Difference in Our Judging”

Here are some excerpts from the speech (emphasis mine):

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that."
"Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases....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."

Again, you read, you decide. Read Judge Sotomayor’s speech in full here. Then let me know what you think at Newt.org.

“Equal Justice Under Law” Is Chiseled in Stone on the Supreme Court

The central principle of American justice -- and perhaps the single, great idea of America -- is equal justice before the law.

This idea is expressed in the words “all men (and today we would say all men and women) are created equal.” It means that Americans stand before the law, not as members of groups, but as individuals.

"Equal justice under law" is in fact chiseled in stone on the front of the Supreme Court building -- and for good reason.

When a judge disregards the rule of law and applies a different standard to certain groups -- or, as the President would say, shows “empathy” -- he or she violates this central American principle.

One Group’s “Empathy” is Another Group’s Injustice. Ask Frank Ricci.

When a judge views Americans as members of groups and not individuals, one group’s “empathy” becomes another group’s injustice.

Nowhere is the injustice that results from judging Americans as members of groups and not as individuals more evident than in Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in the case involving Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter.

Ricci quit his second job and studied 13 hours a day in 2003 for a civil service exam he hoped would earn him a promotion to lieutenant in the New Haven Fire Department. And when Ricci took the exam, all his hard work seemed to pay off. He got one of the highest scores. But because no African-Americans scored high enough on the exam to be promoted, the city of New Haven threw out the results of the test and promoted no one.

Frank Ricci, 16 other white firefighters, and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city, claiming they were denied promotions on the basis of their race. A district judge dismissed the case, and a three- judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. One of those judges was Judge Sotomayor.

An Opportunity to Have a Debate About Equal Justice for Americans Like Frank Ricci

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the Ricci case, and a ruling is expected next month, likely in the midst of hearings on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.

Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to reverse Judge Sotomayor’s ruling. But however the high court rules, this is a moment for America to have a full, honest and open debate, not just about the impartiality of our judges, but about equal justice before the law for Americans like Frank Ricci.

Which Judge Sotomayor Will Show Up on the Supreme Court?

In fairness to the judge, many of her rulings as a court of appeals judge do not match the radicalism of her speeches and statements. She has shown more caution and moderation in her rulings than in her words.

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?

It’s no small question. Judge Sotomayor is 54 years old. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is 89. Judge Sotomayor has the potential to spend more than 30 years on the Supreme Court. There, unlike on the court of appeals, she will have no reason to show caution. On the high court, Judge Sotomayor will not have to worry about a higher court overturning her rulings. As a Supreme Court Justice, she will do the overturning.

The stakes are very high with this nomination. Has President Obama nominated a conventionally liberal judge to a lifetime tenure on our highest court? Or a radical liberal activist who will cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity?

Let me know what you think at Newt.org.

Your friend,

Newt’s Quick Links

This Spring I taught a course at the University of Georgia School of Law on the proper role of the judiciary in interpreting the Constitution. It’s especially relevant now with a confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court approaching. The first two lectures from the class are posted at newt.org/law. I encourage you to leave your feedback. A short clip of one of the lectures on the duty of all three branches to defend the constitution can be found here.
My daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, also takes up the question of impartiality and the Sotomayor nomination this week in her weekly column at townhall.com. The larger theme of her column is learning every day, one of the five principles for happiness and success we outline in our new book, 5 Principles for a Successful Life: From Our Family to Yours.
Father’s Day is coming up on June 21 and Newt.org is running specials on autographed books. And speaking of Father’s Day, Jackie is asking for your help with for a Father’s Day gift for me. Sure sounds mysterious. Go to 5principlesoflife.com and she’ll tell you all the details.
If you’re in the Washington, D.C. area, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) will be holding a special screening of Callista’s and my film, “Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny” this Sunday. Go to gingrichproductions.com for more details.
In the latest Forbes, Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation asks if President Obama’s economic policies are ending the recession or prolonging it, and offers a plan for how we can do better. Read it here.
It’s hard to believe, but some politicians want to raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500. They’re calling it Cap and Trade but it’s really just an energy tax. Help us defeat this destructive bill by signing the “Stop the Energy Tax” petition today.
Last year, on June 6, the anniversary of D-Day, over 1,500 radio stations honored our troops and our nation’s religious heritage by playing Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s extraordinary, six-minute, nationally broadcast prayer to the nation that first aired just hours after allied troops were storming the beaches of Normandy. Will you help continue this new patriotic tradition? Just call your favorite radio program and encourage them to play FDR’s D-Day Prayer on June 6. For more information, including how to reach your favorite radio programs, just go here.
Callista and I were on location in Poland and Rome last week filming our upcoming documentary on Pope John Paul II, Nine Days that Changed the World. You can learn more about this and other documentaries we have made at gingrichproductions.com.

Tag |

Email |

Print |

Comments

By bd001217 @ Friday, October 16, 2009 12:33 PM

Newt - It is, of course, your decision as to whether or not to cave on your comments anytime you're criticized by Rachel Maddow.

But so-called "judge" Sotomayor IS A RACIST... PERIOD.

If a white male commented that a white male would make a better judge than a "latino" or a black person, that white male would be labeled a racist. And the people who do label said man a racist would NEVER retract the comments.

Conservatives are supposed to be principled. Judge Soto IS a racist. And your retraction of your charge isn't doing anything to make her NOT be a racist. She's still a racist, even after you retract your comments.

Do you see anyone on the left backing down from the FALSE charge of Rush Limbaugh being a racist? No, of course not..and they never will.

The difference is, the left makes up "quotes" that Rush never said, and then use those quotes to "prove" he's a racist. You used ACTUAL quotes from Judge Soto, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is, in fact, a racist. And YOU'RE the one making the retraction.

Come on, Newt... can't you issue a retraction of your retraction. Just say that your retraction was taken out of context, and that Judge Soto is, in fact, a racist, as you originally said.

Your ideas for the country are brilliant. You just need to get a little spine back, that's all.

By NoBS @ Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:47 AM

Sotomayor can say whatever she wants this week. The fact remains she DID state that a wise Latina woman could make a better judgment than a white male. What else could that mean? As far as I'm concerned, she can backpeddle all she wants this week to get the job; but I truly believe she meant the statement exactly as we all interpreted it originally. Unfortunately, the present gov (Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc) lie and justify it later. It is what it is. 2010 & 2012 can't come soon enough!

By RAPUNZIL67 @ Monday, July 13, 2009 10:08 PM

Newt,

Before you chose to call Judge Sotomayor a racist. Which was obviously your 1st thought, Can you honestly say your not a racist? "It is my belief, that people who loosely use the word RACIST are truly racist themselves". It seems many racists out there are angry about the fact that we now have a black president - and may soon have the first female Supreme Court Judge who happens to be Puerto Rican. I believe these attacks on her comments were twisted to make her sound racist and really have nothing to do with her comments at all. If Americans as a whole were not racist, we would not be having this discussion. For many years we have had white males running the Supreme Court, has there ever been any discussion about they’re backgrounds or where they were from? How they grew up? Let’s face it! We all have some kind of bias who are you trying to fool. That’s the only reason you have made an issue about her comments. Because YOU are indeed a racist yourself.

By marebob @ Monday, July 06, 2009 11:25 PM

After reading Sotomayor's comments it strikes me that she does not see past the color or race of an individual. Justice is suppose to be blind. Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter who the perpetrator or what his status in society. Her presence on the court would seriously compromise unprejudiced judgements

By ached nape @ Friday, June 12, 2009 9:17 PM

I agree – it is worse – both for the reasons you suggest and another you didn't mention.

The reasons you're concerned about are obvious, particularly when you consider her apparent obsession with the lack of statistical parity for "people of color", etc., at all levels of the judiciary. But then, I would not expect anyone to come to any judicial bench without some sort of agenda. Human nature dictates that is an impossibility.

However, of equal concern to me is the fact that she displays an inclination toward construction of drawn-out incoherent sentences. Much like GBS, she tends to go on at paragraphic length. Quite unlike GBS, her thought process gets lost in the maze. Half the time it took to read her speech was spent re-reading various sentences to see if I could make sense of them. And many of those are still unintelligible. I can imagine years of unresolved Supreme Court debate over any opinions she may write, simply because no one can figure out what the hell she was trying to say. And justice delayed – not to mention confused – is not justice served.

How she got as far as she did – or even out of law school – is something of a mystery. My guess is that, despite her misgivings to the contrary, parity had something to do with it.

Bottom line: she all but admits that her background gives her an agenda which she will allow to dictate her rulings. That alone makes her an unacceptable candidate. The clincher is this demonstrated inability to maintain clarity of thought. Sadly, both of these factors make her a shoe-in for Senate Democrats.

By walkerhart @ Tuesday, June 09, 2009 4:57 PM

Seems to me that the whole judge picking thing can be revolutionized by setting term limits on judges, say 20 years or 16 years. That way any one president is limited in his affect on the country and the partisanship can be somewhat removed from the fight.

By Anonymous @ Monday, June 08, 2009 9:41 PM

Everyone is missing the point that her comment is a typical derogatory comment used by Latin America when belittling, mocking,ridiculing,insulting Americans so Latin Americans could care less if she is called a racist by Republicans or any other group or person. I know this because I am Costa Rican and have heard such derogatory comments through out my life. You can compare it to the numerous derogatory comments we have in our country towards Jews, Blacks, Gays, Weight, Gender, etc...

Our legal scholars, American people keep trying to explain her comment because they are not familiar with typical Latin America lingo.

I think one of the dangers is that her comment is the result that she views herself as a Latino woman and doesn't seem to realize that she is an American (born in New York). Puerto Rico is Caribbean/Islanders and a U.S. Commonwealth and is not a Latin American country at all, in Latin America Puerto Rico is called "Caribe" even their food/music is completely different of that of Central and South America.

Does she call herself a Latino woman because she speaks Spanish? but that would be like calling a Canadian an American only because they also speak English.

Cuba/Haiti/Cayman Islands/Puerto Rica/Jamaica are all Caribbean.

The second danger is that if she believes in Judging using her life experiences at the bench and she's hung up on the Latina issue then how will that affect Americans, Latin Americans, Blacks, Jews, Muslims etc...if she doesn't make a decision based on the laws of our country but on her hang ups? it would equal to a police officer basing his decisions on the field on his life experiences and hang ups and not on the law and that could spell danger for all of us equally and for our country.

A Judge, as well as a police officer need to be completely impartial and make decisions based on the law to keep our country from chaos and danger.

By gabbygibby @ Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:18 PM

JW from Chicago

You said, "We are all very disappointed that you are choosing to use the so called “Sotomayor racism” quote without using the entire quote and putting it in the correct context. "

Sorry bud, but you are wrong, Mr. Gingrich in his newsletter provided the entire speach from Ms. Sotomayor. I read the whole thing. Wherein she talked about her ethnicity and how her family gets together and what they eat, etc. Did you read the whole speach? If you did you would have see that there is not one thing in there about her qualifications with regard to being a lawyer or a judge. Not one thing. What is being said here is true and Mr. Gingrich did not take it out of context but supplied us here with the whole speach to judge for ourselves. So I suggest that "you" go back and read the whole speach in it's entirety. It is without substance regarding the law or our constitution. It is all about her and her ethnicity and family gatherings. Read it and you will see that you owe Mr. Gingrich an apology.

By Scott- @ Saturday, June 06, 2009 4:02 PM

*Are some racists ‘more equal’ than others, for JW in Chicago?*

JW-Chicago writes: “As a conservative, I am more than saddened by the Right’s continuing blind obstructionism.”

If your OWN political views are not on “the Right”, then what kind of “conservative” are you, a “Leftist” conservative?

Why don’t you explain to all of us how that works, JW?

As for “blind obstructionism”, a racist is a racist is a racist.

If she was a Republican nominee, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, because she would have been “Borked” and withdrawn the moment her video surfaced.

That’s a double-standard.

If she had been a member of the Black Panthers or the KKK (instead of “La Raza”), she would have been “Borked” and withdrawn (unless her name was Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd, of course).

That’s a double-standard, AND racist.

A racist and member of the KKK should never be allowed on the Supreme Court. A racist and member of the Black Panthers should never be allowed on the Supreme Court. A racist and a member of “La Raza” should never be allowed on the Supreme Court.

Racism is racism.

Unless you’re a proponent of “Animal Farm” style racism, where all racists are equal, but some racists are more equal than others?

Does that describe you, JW?

Are you an “Animal Farm” racist?

By Scott- @ Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:52 PM

JW-Chicago writes: “We are all very disappointed that you are choosing to use the so called “Sotomayor racism” quote without using the entire quote and putting it in the correct context.”

Who is “we”? Besides yourself, for whom do you claim to be speaking?

_ _ _

JW-Chicago writes: “The truth is, like her or not, she is actually a highly qualified candidate and will probably make a wonderful Supreme Court Justice.”

That’s not the “truth”, JW. That’s just your opinion.

Like it or not.

_ _ _

JW-Chicago writes: “Can we please focus on the important issues?”

A potential 30+ year lifetime appointment of an openly racist individual to the Supreme Court of the United States of America is an important issue, JW.

Like it or not.

By Common Sense @ Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:35 PM

The comments about "white males" is disturbing... white males founded this country; white males fought to free slaves; white males fought many wars to liberate people of many different ethnic origins; white males represent "cultural" backgrounds as diverse, perhaps more diverse, as any other "labeled" group; 'tho they are depreciated w/o shame in America ... what's wrong with this picture? What's going on in America?

Here is a quote from the most vile leader the world has ever know.... guess who?
Fueled by... oratory and the sense of being part of an epic, invincible movement, ...rallies saw hundreds of thousands of people -- or, in the case ..... more than a million -- swept up by the carefully calculated grandeur. "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one"

By JW-Chicago @ Friday, June 05, 2009 3:56 PM

Newt,

We are all very disappointed that you are choosing to use the so called “Sotomayor racism” quote without using the entire quote and putting it in the correct context.

As a conservative, I am more than saddened by the Right’s continuing blind obstructionism. The truth is, like her or not, she is actually a highly qualified candidate and will probably make a wonderful Supreme Court Justice.

Can we please focus on the important issues? What are you doing to protect us from China’s aggressive marketing? How are you protecting US jobs from travelling overseas to India? How are you making our food safer? What are you doing to protect our press from overly aggressive niche owners like Rupert Murdoch?

We need you Newt. But we need you honest and righteous.

By Lauren Cross @ Friday, June 05, 2009 2:48 PM

Newt - I'm disappointed to see how you reacted to criticism by the mainstream media and many so-called Republicans of your comment regarding Sotomayor's racism. This article does not clear it up. I fail to see how her words can be racist, but that she is not racist. What else would make her a racist, but her words, beliefs and ideas? Racist is not a physical trait, such as black, white, Hispanic, male, female, etc., and the only we know whether a person is a racist is by what they say.

Rumor has it that you are considering a run for the presidency in 2012, and if so, PLEASE always stick to your positions and don't back down when you get negative publicity for anything you believe. You are a brilliant conservative thinker and have clear, concise solutions to our problems. We don't need politicians who are swayed by popular opinion. We need people who stick to their principles no matter what the cost.

By danieltx2004 @ Friday, June 05, 2009 12:18 AM

I read Ms. Sotomayor's speech and what struck me the most was that she seemed more Puerto Rican than America. I also found some of her perspective anti-male. I do not think she will judge cases based purely on the constitution but rather on her own sense of fairness. I find that unacceptable.

By Chip Chopper @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:23 PM

Guess I have to take back the suggestion Sotomayer may be a lesbian. I just heard she married once and then divorced. That's quite rare for a supreme court judge, though. They usually can at least judge their own spouse.

By Chip Chopper @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 1:30 PM

People have failed to also note the completely pejorative use of words
with respect to white men in Sotomayer's
quote.

She contrasts a "wise Latina woman" with a "white male". A fair contrast -something a judge is supposed to able to make- would require her to use, instead of "white male", a "wise White American man".

The term "male" or "female" denegrates the humanness of a person, particularly when making contrasts between genders: Woman versus male, Man versus female.
A racial term, such as white, denegrates whom it's directed at, when contrasted with a national/ethnic terms, such as Latina.

The whole phrase stank of both anti-white and anti male bias. Anyone know is Sotomayer is married. Kudos to the man who would marriy this Jabba the Hut, and nothing wrong with not being married, either. But if she's not married because she's got problems with "males', and she's giving thick PC lectures in Berkeley, where does her PCness end, anyway? Have we got a rabid Latina racist activist lesbian that BHO appointed for SCOTUS?

By Storoit @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:10 PM

How can you say that while her words are racist, she is not? As a white male if I say ANYTHING that is in the slightest way disparaging, I - me personally and in toto - am labeled racist.
Sotomayor is without question RACIST, and you should be ashamed to have retracted your words.

By pro @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:42 AM

Newt
As impossible as it is to 'Un-Ring' a bell, you should STAND by your original assessment of Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor!!!

She IS a RACIST.

How often do White people refer to themselves as being able to render a superior judgment on the basis of our racial or sociological backgrounds?

The answer is of course, nearly never; it would be racist for ANYONE to do so.

She was the first to play the RACE card, let her nomination burn in it's own defeat. Do not be played for a fool by those who are now going soft on her Racist rhetoric because she MIGHT just be one of the shrinking numbers of pro-life Catholics!!

After you've said what you meant to say, STAND UP like the wise man you are!

STAND UP for Truth and REAL Justice; not something contrived in order to be 'electable' or able to be defended by one conservative issue.

By icervantesiii @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:08 AM

She is a racist, don't listen to the media. Why do all politicians believe the 3 or 4 thousand reporters and talking heads? The lady is a racist, and worse yet, she thinks policy is made while in a black robe, with gavel in hand. She is a member of La Raza, if you plug that into Babelfish.com, it means "The Race". Now listen, I am hispanic as well and I have relatives in Mexico, brown people are just as greedy and ignorant as any other colored individual, if they allow their impulses to rule their lives. Newt, don't flinch at the site of a camera, you are not a bigot or racist for stating fact. This is the fatal flaw republicans have, caving to a brow beating by those that would call urine and fecal matter on a statue of the Virgin Mary art. I don't expect any change in your original opinion, so don't expect my respect.

By Bonnie Pepper @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:22 AM

Sotomayor is by her own words a racist....let's look at her words! As another poster noted, if a white nominee had said something akin to what she had said, they would be lambasted and run out of town on a rail...Newt, I truly wish you had not recanted what you had said! Stand firm in what you say! Be not afraid! Pandering to political correctness is leading the Republican party into a dark tunnel of ineffectiveness and obscurity. The blueprint for success was created by RONALD REAGAN. Follow that and success will come.

By scousemacca @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:00 AM

If personal experience is to become the sole criterion of justice, why should not the conclusions of the wise old white male, with the richness of his personal experiences equally unavailable to the comparably-wise old Latina female, not be considered more acceptable? What makes one set of personal experiences preferable to another in any given case? Sonia Sotomayor apparently believes that personal experience should be allowed to decide the Law rather than allowing the Law determine the value of personal experience. Thus she is revealed as yet another victim of the judicial anarchy currently being substituted by those at the top level of government for the objective provisions of United States Constitution.

By msfyrebyrd @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:32 AM

Newt, I am disappointed in your change of heart. This woman is a racist at heart. She will help our current to continue destroying this country and turn it even more into a socialist coutnry with fascist overtones. I have read and heard lots and do not think that she would ever give a white person a fair judgment over a person of Spanish heritage or black over European if the case involved both. The white would always lose. She has said as much numerous times and proved it with her ruling.

Then to say " that the court makes polcy (law)" only proves that she does not care for the US Constitution and sees it only as a barrier to do away with as does President Obama. It is an impediment to their final goal of having a socialist, fascist country where there is the poor and the elite.

By phylmike34 @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 1:55 AM

this woman is indeed a racist,I am scared that obama the fraud is trying to put the people in the court who will do his bidding,they will make it a law where he doesnthave to show his birth certificate and they will tear down our constitution to make us a socialist country,this woman must not be admitted to the supreme court,if the spineless cowardly republicans do not stand up for us and stop this evil woman from being placed on the supreme court and demand this fake president show us the people the long form birth certificate that we are demanding be shown,www.wnd.com,then I am gonna ditch this party that I have voted for all my life and start looking for a third party that will fight this evil.

By Chip Chopper @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:56 AM

While BHO claimed the facts about Sotomayer have been taken "out of context", it's obvious he selected her for her racist, politically activist beliefs he's trying to deny exist. But, if she is confirmed, BHO would smilingly claim her confirmation gave him a mandate for more racist policies in all areas of government.

Got it? Any Republican who supports the nomination of this judge should be voted out of office, because everyone is starting to understand what BHO and his parasite minions are all about.

By gabbygibby @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:01 AM

I agree with all of the above. I also think Ms. Soudimeyier's (sp) problem is that she is "identified" with your latina, woman self instead of her humanness. I am so tired of hearing this over and over again. She needs to "get over it." That speach was so boring and it had no substance with regard to what her qualifications were if she were to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Does she even know about the Constitution and what it is for? What questions will she have to answer.

You know I have grandparents who came from two different countries, one Irish and the other Chekeslovakia, we loved our heritage and we had our struggles but we never continued to use our race, sex, or heritage to cry "poor me," or poor us. We worked hard and did what we wanted to do without blaming our misfortunes on not being the right race, nationality or gender. Why my dad recalls the time when I was born (1949) and when my family walked (we didn't own a car) me and my family to church to have me baptized (being only 2 weeks old) and that the church refused to baptize me because we were not Italian. Well we didn't call every newspaper in the area, or tell every Tom, Dick or Harry about it. They just walked me up the hill in the middle of July to another church that would accept this poor Irish family. I think it's really funny. I don't blame anyone. I have not continued to assault or insult the Church or all the Italian people. I am Irish and Slovac but not identified with it. I am a human being accepting and imbracing all that life has to offer me. Sorry but I am so tired of hearing about the struggles of the blacks and hispanic, what about all the other ethnicities do you hear any of them complaining all the time and shouting raceism, or saying that someone is profiling them. I tell you we have taken this blame far to long. Everyone get over it. Just quit identifying about what you are and who is picking on you and do what it is you want to do and just see each other as "people of interest," with no ethnicity, race or gender. "Humans doing and loving it."

By Chookon @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:56 PM

" Equal Justice Under Law " is precisely correct. This is why Sotomayor and the liberals are anithetical to American ideals and the Constitution.

For Example the so-called " hate crime " statutes make a mockery of equal justice. These types of laws are in essence a throwback to fuedal law and bifurctaed Justice. For example the law and penalty for striking a noble was much more severe than for striking a non noble.

This is in essence what liberals are advocating with their corrupt , so-called hate laws...there are laws on the books wich protect ALL americans with equal justice under law....The Hate crimes law in esence set up a " noble class " with exceptional legal protections . This is truely unamerican.

This is the essence of liberal's ideals of justice ..to dispose of equall justice under law and set up special classes of people with special protections and special outcomes.Clearly this is unacceptable.

It could not be more clear that liberals dispose of the precept of equall justice under law and try to replace it with a bifurcated system of justice with protected classes just like feudal law....its really that simple.

By lorriek @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:06 PM

Who could possibly be surprised by Obama's pick for the supreme court vacancy? When reading her speech it is blatantly obvious that she will not interpret the law but rather use the court to enforce her beliefs and I find her to be arrogant at best, racially motivated at the worst. But what bothers me more is that the Republican party is running around, trying to be so politically correct, afraid to say anything negative about this appointment because it may be interpreted as racially motivated and alienate the latino community. I would hope that the republicans would challenge her, her comments and her beliefs, afterall, this an appointment for life, but I have my doubts and I am getting disgusted with the party.

By Adele in Texas @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:58 PM

I think the best way to respond is by copying the following May 31st entry from my blog:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh crossed over the line when they referred to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a racist. Probably hurting the Republican Party far more than they hurt her chances of confirmation." ~ Gary Baumgarten

Really. Frankly, I feel that you stated as fact what is merely an opinion, but failed to qualify it as such. I realize many share your opinion, but that acquiescence doesn’t magically transform your outlook into verity. There are probably equally as many who share my opinion, but I'll temper my comments with a disclaimer that this entry reflects my opinion, feelings and thoughts. I agree with the school of thought that Sonia Sotomayor is a racist, just as I believe the Obamas are racists, David Duke is a racist, Robert Byrd is a racist - Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Jamie Foxx, and lest we forget Al Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan and because I could be here all day, I'll just say so forth and so on - all racists. (Nor have I forgotten Colin Powell, the Republican.)

It’s interesting to observe that many from “the other side” are not only attempting to, but actually imposing what can only be described as damaging and disastrous political strategies on the Republican Party with great success. Their goal, of course, is its ultimate defeat through the dilution and weakening of the conservative values with which the Republican Party used to identify. Why I can see it and Sen. John Cornyn-R Texas, for example, doesn’t, defies comprehension. The ostensible willingness of party leadership to heed those whose sole and obvious goal is their failure, while disregarding the voices of those who comprise their solid, traditional voting base remains baffling. Failure to stand up for what they claim to believe in indicates nothing but a desire to remain part of the DC Club. In this particular case, it cost John Cornyn my support though to be perfectly honest, his voting record has already led me on a search for a true conservative to support that can successfully challenge and defeat him when his current term ends. Republican “leaders” propitiating in an effort to safeguard their congressional seats is unacceptable and shouldn't be tolerated. Forsaking integrity and good judgment by pandering to ethnic voting blocks whose loyalty will never be gained is an exercise in futility that is taking the Republican Party down a path toward obsoletism - and I'll give you one guess who stands to benefit most when that happens.

But I digress... Political correctness, the polar opposite of honesty, rules the day and we must of course, be politically correct at all costs. This insipient dishonesty, AKA political correctness - and cowardice – is rampant at every level of government. And, when those without a horse in the race such as Gingrich, Limbaugh and Tancredo state what should be painfully obvious to everyone - and more likely than not true – you’re too quick to cry, “Foul!”

My opinion that Sotomayor is uniquely unqualified to sit as a justice on the Supreme Court is most likely based on the same criteria that was used by those gentlemen to formulate their opinions - her poor track record as a sitting judge and why it's so poor. Consideration of the underlying reasons for so many overturned Sotomayor decisions is basic and relevant. A legitimate question is, rather than being deeply rooted in law, were her legal opinions based on feelings, empathy and bigotry? That would be wrong-headed and her own racially charged statements bear incriminating and undeniable witness to that wrong-headedness.

I have no problems with activist organizations that benefit the whole of American society, but worthy of mention is also Sotomayor's involvement with La Raza, an organization that feels "Many immigrants who have no legal channels to arrive and work in the U.S. are forced to risk their lives and enter without proper authorization…” The key word in that preposterous statement is “forced”. Who forces people to enter the US without proper authorization?

Should we have to concern ourselves with the personal politics of Supreme Court justices? No, we shouldn’t. We should feel secure in the knowledge that at the appellate level, Constitutional law is the only deciding factor when writing an opinion. But Sotomayor along with Obama and Obama's advisors, and his various and sundry other sycophants are promoting the lame-brained, liberal notion that the law should be "empathetic and kind", when in fact, the law should only be just. It is rule of law, not empathy or feelings, political ideology or party affiliations that should prevail in judicial decisions and I fear Sotomayor doesn't share that opinion since so many of her rulings demonstrate precisely what can happen when the personal mind-set of a judge trumps the Constitution.

So, my question to you, Gary is WHOSE line did Gingrich, Tancredo and Limbaugh cross by identifying Sonia Sotomayor as a racist? Your line? The mainstream media’s line? The liberal left's line or the oh-so-delicate gossamer line of political correctness?

By BARRETO716 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:53 PM

DO WHAT YOU CAN FOR YOURSELF; FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY ,THE PORTO RICAN PEOPLE HADBEEN LEFT BEHIND AS VERY LOYAL US CITIZENS; GIVING EVERYTHING FOR THEIR COUNTRY WITH STRONG SENSE OF PATRIOTISM SINCE 1898/////////////////

By BARRETO716 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:53 PM

By suzie71@aol.com @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:38 PM

Newt, I fully agree with you that Judge Sotomayer is a reverse racist. I don't think you should have later "corrected" yourself. If one of Caucasian heritage had said that, they would have been FORCED TO WITHDRAWL. Why are the rules different for non-whites? They SHOULD NOT BE! Equality for all – justice for all!

I'm so tired of non-whites having attitudes when all Americans do is bend over backwards to make non-whites feel welcome, get job opportunities, etc. Equality for all – justice for all!

Judge Sotomayer should have to follow the SAME rules as EVERYONE else. She SHOULD BE FORCED to WITHDRAWL. Equality for all – justice for all!

I read some of the posts and I don't have any idea how a Kenyan is now in our Presidential seat making all kinds of decisions to give taxpayer’s money away - WITHOUT TAX PAYER CONSENT!

I'm getting really tired of ALL THE BAILOUTS, all the free handouts, and now illegals in our country can get free lawyers instead of getting tossed out on their butts like they legally deserve.

What is going on America??

America - we all need to wake up!

Or America won't be the America our FOUNDING FATHERS created and that saddens me A LOT!

God, Please Bless Our America!

By matthewjoanna @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:13 PM

Mr. Gingrinch was right when he said Sotomayor was racist. Generally, people's words indicate their thoughts, their mentality, their philosophy. The words were racist, clearly. So the question becomes: did she say words that did not accurately reflect her philosophy, words which were out of character? The whole speech from which the words were taken shows that the racist words express her philosophy perfectly and, therefore, they are accurate indicators of her philosophy. Hence, Sotomayor is a racist. There is no other way to see it. The focus should be on the fact that she cannot enforce the rule of law impartially -- this is the legal reason why she cannot be a good judge. One can fail to be impartial for many reasons. The reason why Sotomayor cannot be impartial is that she is racist.

By rico @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:07 PM

I too am concerned about justice not being blind and not being seen as an individual before the law...any "cautious" appearance in Sotomayors past judgements are most likely calculated, at best, to put her in a "fair minded" position to Americans that have already bought into the Obama deceit. I'm sure the Supreme Court has been her goal, and she has played the game to get this nomination...to think she will be interpreting the law without prejudice would be naive.

By rico @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:06 PM

By elegaspi @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:50 PM

Moderation not reactionary or incendiary comments, promotes sound public policy and public discourse on this Sotomayor nomination and all public issues.
I am glad to hear that Mr. Gingrich reflected on his reaction and appears to be advocating an objective, rational process.

By B.C. @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:20 PM

Newt, I believe that the initiation of the beginning of the United States began with a letter that began "we hold these truths to be self evident that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL". The term MEN is generic. While all persons have differences in wealth, physical and mental capacities, under the LAW we are to be judged equally and impartially. Justice is to be blind. Any person that cannot rule impartially, under the law, as a judge does not deserve to wear the robes of justice in any court in our land! The Constitution is supposed to be the contract between us as citizens and the government that is supposed to SERVE us NOT RULE us. The House and the Senate are the legislative bodies, empowered under Constitution to write law. The President and Supreme Court cannot write law, according to our constitutional contract. The "SOLE PURPOSE" of the Supreme Court is to insure that the Laws enacted by the Congress are within the legal powers guaranteed by the Constitution. By her own statements, Sotomayer doesn't deserve to wear the robes of a judge, let alone sit on the bench of the Supreme Court!!

By miworld1 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:43 PM

I agree with your original assessment.
I am quite sick and tired of the politically correct statements by too many people.
That just means a lie is being told.
When are the Republicans going to stand up and stop this mealy mouthed garbage?
I agree with Lawrence Eagleberger "obama
is a charlaton..a con man". He says what he knows most people will not even hear or care about !!

By leewolf @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:58 PM

I find this candidate unacceptable for a very simple reason: 60% of her Appeals Court decisions have been overturned by the SCOTUS.

This alone says there are other far more qualified judges deserving elevation to the highest court.

As to the "...latino women..." comment, the "where the law is made" comment, and her long record of race based Affirmative Action and her membership in La Raza, they add up to a "Racist" mentality.

There is no way that a Republican or Consevative could ever get by with any of these comments or their equivilent.

Newt, don't wimp out by going PC on us.

PC is Thought Control
LEE

By Johnny Vee @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:58 PM

I agree with prior comments in that Sotomayor needs to be put to the task to explain her decisions and her statements which indicate that in her mind justice is not blind......she will ultimately be confirmed due to the Dems overwhelming majority but she needs to put on display about her positions. There could be one major silver lining in her confirmation and that is the potential for her to be pro-life. Will that issue come up in her confirmation hearings? Wouldn't that be something if she answered the question that she IS pro-life. The DEMS wouldn't want to confirm her and they'd be faced with having to refuse to seat the first Hispanic on the SC, and Obama's first choice, to keep their "culture of death" constituency happy. Am I dreaming here or what? How lucious would that be?

By americangirl1974 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:56 PM

I agree with the strong and direct approach that Newt showed in responding to Sotomayor’s racist remark. Her comment was a direct attack at Newt and he had every right as a white man to fight back. Newt and others need to continue to stand-up to racist comments such as these and NOT give in to the media bias and apologize. By responding to the left when they play the race card only feeds into their power grab and does very little to bring us together as American’s.

By seebee @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:30 PM

The people who voted for Obama did not choose him because of his qualifications and experience for the job. Many of them voted for him because of the color of his skin. So, we have an unqualified, inexperienced, highly prejudiced partisan radical from the political corruption capital of the world, Chicago. The people that Obama chooses as appointees support him and his radical agenda and will do whatever it takes to make sure that he is successful. As a legislator, Obama changed laws In Illinois to benefit illegal aliens. He is demonstrating that he can rule like a dictator, bypass congress, and fire CEO's of private companies and take them over. How can his choice for the Supreme Court, with a personal story identical to Obama's own story, be anything other than a dangerous radical?

By mandybowman @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:20 PM

As a middle school history teacher I am charged with teaching students to find the main idea of passages they read. After having read the entirety of Judge Sotomayor's speech, I believe it would be difficult to find a single sentence throughout the entire text that best exemplifies the "main idea" of what she is trying to say. The idea that this comment was taken out of context is ludicrous and based on the notion that the majority of American people are not likely to dig deeper into her full statements, most are confident that news sources and political commentators will boil down these points honestly and let Americans go on with the work of housing and feeding their families.
I don't personally disagree with her point of view that our history and heritage are a part of who we are and influence the decisions we make in our lives. However, a justice of the Supreme Court is a very exclusive job, requiring only a handful of qualified people at any given time. I am not currently satisfied that Judge Sotomayor is prepared to deliver the impartiality that is demanded of that role. Empathy is needed in our society, if we don't try to understand what it is like to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, we can never figure out what is needed to help them, or better what can be done to allow them to help themselves. Yet it remains that empathy, while an endearing trait in a friend, is not the cornerstone of an appropriate pick for a Supreme Court Justice. I am keeping an open mind and will be paying attention, but will need more than being told this quote was taken out of context to convince me that this appointment is something to feel good about. And I hope Judge Sotomayor can empathize with those feelings among concerned Americans who believe in equal justice before the law.

By AntonioSosa @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:36 PM

As a Hispanic, I'm grateful to Newt for standing on principle and not on race. It's racist to believe that we Hispanics support Sotomayor because she's a Hispanic! All the Hispanics I know do NOT support her nomination because we believe Sotomayor is biased, sexist and racist.

What’s worst, she does not seem to have much regard for the U.S. Constitution and the principle of separation of powers. She said that judges make policy. Doesn’t she know that it’s the Legislative branch that sets policy? Is she going to advocate changing the Constitution?

By changing their constitutions, Hugo Chavez, Morales, Rafael Correa and the rest of the “socialists of the XXI century” in Latin America have become dictators and are destroying their countries and enslaving their people. We in the U.S. believe in Government of laws, not in Government of men! Governments of men are dictatorships! We deserve a knowledgeable, honest, non-partisan American – of whatever color or gender -- as Supreme Court judge! Sotomayor is NOT such an American.

Race is important for Sotomayor! She seems to believe that as a Latino woman she has the right to be sexist and racist, while whites have only the right to admire her racism.

Sotomayor was/is a member of La Raza (The Race), one of the most racist organizations in the country. Speaking at a La Raza meeting, Sotomayor said, “I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” I guess she wants to focus on our differences, on race, and believes that she has the right to show “empathy,” to favor women or men of color and to punish white males and females for the “crime” of being white. Americans – Democrats and Republicans – have the duty to fight the nomination of Sotomayor as a Supreme Court judge.

By guygibbs @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:51 PM

I agree with your original statement. I think Judge Sotomayor plans to nullify the Supreme Court like the O.J. Simpson jury nullified that case. She sound like she would make decisions based on her bias rather than on the law of the land. It is the obligation of everyh citizen to obey he law. If Judge Sotomayor plans to make decisions based on life experiences as the President has suggested, where does that leave the rest of us. I think it will be a tragedy if she is approved by the Senate. I hope you won't change your stance. I agree with you.
Dempsey Gibbs
Yorba Linda, CA

By timminnick @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:46 PM

It would be WRONG to appoint this person to the bench.
She repeatedly shows the jurisprudence of a high school principal. She may have worked hard to earn degrees/education and or position of personal economic gain,YET she does not have the interests of "the people" whom she would be representing at heart. She clearly has a bias towards a personal agenda that wreeks of hate! She obviously cannot grasp the principle of this seat,"Equal justice under the law for ALL". She lends her heart to making decisions on the fly by compulation of criteria, ie. situation by sex,color and or creed! THAT IS WRONG! And unacceptable.

By sir2you @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:44 PM

I don't really care if Der Fuerer appoints another communist. When he is exposed as an illegal alien, anything he has done as president will become moot. We get a second chance, after he presides over the destruction of the republic...

By teredge @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:47 PM

I hope you will remove me from your mailing list. I can't believe how irresposible your remark was and the dammage you and Russ are doing to the Republican Party. I hope you will announce that you are no longer considering wasting the tax payers money and Republican Funds to mount what is sure to be a disatorus Presidential campaign. It really upsets me that I thought you were one of the leaders of the Republican Party. Go back to writing your RAH RAH books. I, however, will not be buying any.

By middlekid2@sbcglobal.net @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:46 PM

One of my biggest fears is the fear of having to go to court - over anything. Justice is no longer about right or wrong (FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF OUR COUNTRY) - it is about who has the most money and the lawyer with the most theatrical abilities! And NOW judges will win appointments (LIFETIME) according to their race and life experiences rather than their ability to interrupt the law. As I heard Sotomayor's humble beginnings in life, I was amazed that it appeared to be similar to Obama's - even down to the impoverished childhood that lead to Ivy League colleges. (Ummm . . . .)

Sotomayor's ruling in the case involving Frank Ricci, the WHITE firefighter was enough for me to understand what she is all about. Call it what it is - RACISM.

It seems that Obama's appointments ALL come with a disclaimer of some sort and - they all get a PASS.

Our Republican EMPLOYEES better start being vocal or when 2010 rolls around, both sides of the aisle will discover that we are DONE with business as usual. There are other choices and I am planning to the move to the Libertarian or American Independent Party.

You know that the CHANGE is not going well when Hugo Chavez says, "Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right."

By moooooon @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:37 PM

Newt, I am glad you dropped the "racist" label for her. First of all, remember the "love the sinner but hate the sin" remonstrance. Secondly, labels invite condemnation, but comments on her actions/words invite discussion and even concurrence.

Better to say: "She believes that white men are inferior to Hispanic women in rendering decisions." Or: "She believes that her decisions should not always be impersonal or even impartial".

Harder to do? Of course, but maybe the issues would be less obscured by the fistfights we precipitate.

By wrsteinhauer @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:31 PM

Lady Justice is blindfolder for an important reason-to impartially administer the law. Judge Sotomayor clearly, from her own words, discounts this fundamental basis of our legal system (and a bedrock of our nation). She should not be confirmed to the SC, but because elections have consequences, she probably will be.

By Sawyer @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:28 PM

Is American Justice Blind?
...or should it be. Truly blind justice would require that judges decide without knowing the age, sex, ethnicity, or surname of any involved parties. The judges must not be allowed to see any of the parties or any of their lawyers, for that matter. They could also not hear the voice of any parties or lawyers since this would promote ethnic bias.

Also, the judges themselves could not be identified by surname or image to protect any perceptions of the lawyers.

Until we are willing to take these steps the only real option is to balance the mix of judges on the court and thus balance the bias.

Let's be realistic Newt. Please give us some intelligent arguments. You have the capacity. Why not argue in a forthright and truthful way? Oh...I forgot. To do that would reveal your real ideological agenda. And that would reveal your hatred of our country's founding principles.

By carolynsc@embarqmail.com @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:21 PM

If any white person had made a similar statement as Sotomayor, they would have immediately been replaced with 10 other candidates. Where are the replacements now?

By rsgonner @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:19 PM

Newt-

I thought I finally found a Republican who was not afraid. Sorry I was wrong. Reagan would have called her a racist.

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:09 PM

I think that, in focusing primarily on just two comments in this speech, people challenging her nomination will obscure the totality of the threat this woman portends for American justice and constitutional integrity.

The fact that she is apparently unable to see a distinction between a lawyer and a judge is perhaps the biggest threat from an SC justice who could occupy the bench for 30 years or more. Lawyers will present biases, prejudices, even things they perhaps don't really believe in arguing cases, but when they move to the other side of the bench they must shed them. Obama's promulgation of "empathy" as the new standard is dangerous (would you want to be in court in front of a judge who you knew "felt" for the other side?) Sotomayor will be the personification of that danger if confirmed and seated.

She devoted several long and tortuous paragraphs cataloging the failure of the judiciary to mold itself to an ethnic/gender distribution representative of the US population. She called it "shocking" and avered "we have a long way to go", and then advocated continuing community and organizational activism aimed at "equality in the judicial system". Perhaps Pat Buchanan's reference to "the Quota Queen" is right on target.

What would that look like? How can an organization pursue equality by agitating for preferential treatment for any ethnic/gender/religious/cultural category. And if equality were all that she sought, why would it be important "to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making"? What differences is she trying to make?

Sotomayor sounds to me like someone with an agenda (probably why she appeals to Obama). That agenda, I think, includes chipping away at the constitutional right to an impartial judicial system and process, one that maintains the laws of this country and upholds the constitutional principle that it is the legislative branch that makes them, not the SC. The melting pot and salad bowl metaphor she quotes has no relevance to or place in our judicial system. And the fact that she acknowledges "a danger in relative morality" suggests she will not be adverse to employing it as she feels necessary, is perhaps the most telling statement in this really scary speech.

The key question about (and for) Sotomayor is whether her "Latina identity" will trump her identity as an American citizen, and whether as an SC justice she will let the biases, prejudices, and values of that "Latina identity" trump the values and constraints of our constitution. "Aspiration to impartiality" is not sufficient in an SC justice; impartiality must be the sine qua non of both deliberations and decisions. And "sympathies and prejudices" can never be appropriate in either.

I wonder if there is a Latina (or Latino) equivalent to Sharia?

By soar @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:56 PM

I am glad that this word was taken out of the conversation. There are so many things negatively associated with being a racist and anyone who has ever been on the other side of this comment would want the same response. I would not want to call someone a racist if they were not because of how I have seen it stick to one group of people. George Bush and African-American republicans have been able to effectively address how that label should not be used recklessly against white people who happen to have a different political philosophy. I think it is unfair but white americans may have to be the bigger person in order to remove that stigma that works against them. I am African-American and independent, and my image of a racist would not be a latino female from the Bronx. I listened to George Bush and Condelezza Rice and understand how the word racist brings up images from a very dark time in this country. I think that republicans have been gaining in this area by showing people that these labels are extreme, strong and hurtful to people. I also think that republicans have not mentioned how under Bush they have gone after gangs and gang activity, and hate crimes. The republicans have been the ones to stand up to the bullies in my community, and devisive comments that are used in my community, like the word racist.

By ericrobinson @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:33 PM

RE: “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.”
Dear Newt, Of course there is a little "racism" in that statement, but that's how minority "leaders" rise-up in the activist ranks, they reinforce the feeling in those communities that white people keep them down, to enlist support for their careers. You reacted in a perfectly logical way. The point of all this is, this is exactly how Barack Obama made a career, and those are exactly his own personal politics, so it is just as logical/natural that he would seek-out a judicial candidate who would agree with his vision of the Constitution. The American people mistakenly elected him, and now we are going to have to bite the bullet and survive until you take that job away from him, in 2012. The American people were fooled once, they won't be fooled again.

By flybob @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:18 PM

What kind of a testament to a Supreme Court appointee is it when the President must come on TV to explain what she meant.
A judge's professional output is her own words not someone else's interpretation of them.
If the Pres doesn't have faith in her ability
to say what she means, how can he appoint her when she is incapable of expressing herself properly.
No, she said exactly what she meant and Obama's damage control didn't work on me.

By flybob @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:16 PM

By Shar777 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:41 PM

Plain and simple...this woman is a racist and should be excused of her nomination to the supreme court. Much like any white person would be excused for saying such unwarranted and untrue statements. Who is she to say that ONLY latino women can relate to hardship? Is she stupid? My mother probably suffered more hardship than most people, and yet she doesnt stand a chance on the supreme court. I can believe that this is even being debated....Do latinos think that they are the ONLY culture who knows about being downtrodden? This woman should really read up on TRUE history. Nevertheless, Im not at all suprised that she was nominated by a racist poor excuse for a president. I mean are we this stupid that we dont see the signs? He should be impeached and she should be excused from her nomination and have to apologize to all of the hard working non racist White Americans who worked hard in this country and made it possible for her to be where she is at today. If she gets a seat on the S.C....we are ONLY communicating that racism and stereotypes are ok.

GOD HELP THIS COUNTRY

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:37 PM

I don't believe anyone who thinks like this woman should be a judge. Judges should be impartial and follow the constitution. We should be judges by our actions under the constitution and not whether we are black, hispanic, white, etc. We are supposed to be "one nation". We are all supposed to be equal, but when one group wants special treatment because of their race, we are not equal and never will be. Racism needs to stop no matter what race it is. We need to treat each other respectfully and equally. Regardless.

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:17 PM

Sotomayer should not be critized for saying she would be better than any white male, she should be praised for believing in herself! She should be asked if she also believes that she is better than black males, black females, white females,latino males and all other types of humans. If she says she is then more power to her. If life experiences are important in the job of supreme court judge then maybe Sotomayer should be denied this position for the following; she has no children and is not maried! These are the most important life experences.

By TruthTalker @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:11 PM

Sotomayor wrote:
"As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging."

Now watch her backpedal from this position in order to secure the nomination. Such will reveal dishonesty and place her personal interest in having a position of power over her true personal goal of flooding the judiciary with Latina women in order to change jurisprudence.

I am very disappointed that Newt has backed away from the term "racist" to describe Sotomayor. The liberals will feel victorious and use this apology to further their agenda that "they were right" about Sotomayor not being racist in her views. I guess the pressures of Washington affects even those who are not currently elected to office.

Perhaps Newt will come out swinging harder and make it clear that he only wished to avoid ad hominem rhetoric, but still believes that Sotomayor's philosophy and world view is racist. It is going to be hard to make this case when he has apologized already for using the term racist.

By edblue @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:07 PM

This is the "change" that over 64% of our great country voted for and they got what they voted for. Justice is blind, but not as blind as the people of our great country. The Obama presiderncy is a fraud. I hope we wake up before he destrorys our way of life

By edblue @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:01 PM

This is the "change" that 64% of the country voted for and now they're getting what they asked for. I have faith in the people and know they'll understand that this president has an agenda and has had a planned life from birth. My hope is that our new "leader" doesn't do irrepairable damage before the people realize their mistake. 2010 is the first chance to make a difference and tell the country that they/we made a mistake and now the GOP must regroup and try and salvage our great country.

God help us

By mrjoe66207 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:45 PM

Obamas selection seems to be a ploy to get the hispanic support. I feel that regardless of which side of the fence the nominated is for, the best persons whom understand the constitution and interpet the laws as they were written should be on the Court.
If one doesn't understand the constitution but puts their opinions/decisions based on their race, gender, job, or monetary worth then the constitution will slowly die, and this country will be a thing of the past.

By markdb @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:44 PM

Newt,
Once again you disappoint. Considering the abandonment of our conservative principles by most of the GOP leaders, I was willing to give you a second chance. I so want the 1994 backbencher to return to form.

Unfortunately, you've retreated from statements which were correct my view and worthly of standing behind.

Frankly, I am done with gutless Republican politicians and it pains me to see you joining the ranks.

By St James @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:34 PM

My understanding of the New Haven ruling is that Sotomayor upheld the law as it currently stands. You can't have it both ways: against activist judges and against non-activist judges. In a vast majority of her rulings she has sided against the person claiming discrimination...so which is it activist or non-activist? Everyone expecting the Supreme Court to overturn her ruling, could be very surprised by the actual outcome. Even though the composition of the SC currently overwhelming favors white males, they are not known as activist judges. So I'll be curious as to how those "strict constructionists" decide to interpret this law and this ruling. Actually, it's a no win situation for "conservatives" If they overturn the ruling the liberals will be able to claim that they, the Supremes, have suddenly become "activists" and the current ruling party will gain in its majority. If they uphold her ruling, all those who have made such a big deal about this will look very foolish.

By beachgram @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:34 PM

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the link to the entire speech. She was NOT quoted out of context because her entire speech is full of her bias. The following should be widely disseminated because I think it states her position even more clearly than the quotes we've heard over the past several days:

"While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases."

To even be considering a person for a seat on the Supreme Court who wonders if impartiality is even POSSIBLE is ludicrous! I am 66 years old, and in mourning for the country I knew and loved because it is fast disappearing under the Obama administration.

By napoleonhhh @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:27 PM

Judge Sotomayor is being demonized in the same way President Obama was demonized during the 2008 elections.
During the 2008 elections many naive potential voters believed lies that were spread about Obama: that he was involved with terrorists, that he was an elitist, and that he would pose a threat to our national security.
In the same way, we are now being told that Judge Sotomayor is a racist; that she is going to favor one group of people over another. This is untrue. Sotomayor is not a racist just as Obama is not a terrorist.
We are a divided nation lost in partisan politics.

By JJBrose @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:26 PM

Newt, don't you dare apologize for speaking the truth! If Sotomayer had been a white male, she would have been impeached for her words.

I'm tired of the Republican party pandering / whoring itself for votes. When will politicians get it through their heads that if they stood for something, and behaved ethically, people would be drawn to their cause? The Dems get it, and people respond, not that I think Dems are any more ethical.

By JLW80 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:24 PM

Newt, I don't think you should have backed down from using the word "racist". If any white man said the same but in reverse, he would be blasted! I am a white woman and I have had reverse discrimination in jobs because i'm not black. I have not gotten jobs because I was not a minority and the company needed to fill a quota!

EVERYONE, including caucasians, should be treated equal. Especially when it comes to a court of law! When Obama says that we need someone to be a judge that has "heart and compassion" and "to know what its like to be a poor black person"...that is bringing their own personal issues into making a judicial decision. Its not justice, its giving someone an opportunity for revenge. Its NOT the law, its personal and unjust.

By pcurley @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:22 PM

I think Newt is just being a loyal conservative republican and looking for anything he can find to go against the Obama administration. White men have been running the court for too long . I am all for a hispanic woman to have a chance and I know she will be fair.

By susnhine4 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:20 PM

What surprised me the most is when the republicans said that they had to read all the background about what she has done and then make a decision.When has any of the politicians read anything?Just look at the bills they have passed without reading them.This conformation is a BIG joke.They will just go through the motions and then confirm her.Shame on our politicians for letting our country down again.Is there anyone that has enough backbone to stand up for what is right for our country?I THINK NOT

By oc2010 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:59 AM

Imagine if Bush had nominated someone for the Supreme Court who had said the following:

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

Do you honestly think this would not be called a racist statement by the MSM? Stick to your guns Newt, her comments were race based, if not blatantly racist.

OC

By melinjerry @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:27 AM

Have not people such as judges, prosecuters, police officers and others had to be excused from a case or to excuse themselves because they were too biased and close to the case? What about jurors - are they not scrutinized for impartiality?
It seems to me that the forgotten word here is "objectivity". Sotomayor should not be allowed to be seated on the highest court in the land.

By steve c @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:26 AM

Newt, I sincerely hope that those voting heed your comment about the nominee's previous decisions and statements as a lower court judge. The ability of peers and the Supreme Court to review her opinions is the sword of Damocles that guides their conduct as one moves up through the judicial ranks. As a Supreme Court justice, she would be wearing the Kevlar robe that protects her from that sword's blows.

Those Senators, who will decide the high court's makeup for our future, need to consider many of the past statements and idelologies of her nominator and how those were denied, as a predictor of the future, on his path to the Presidency. Hasn't the short time he has been in office shown that past actions are a far better indicator of future performance than promises made to gain a higher office?

By GOTTOGO @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:03 AM

I AGREE WITH MR. NEWT. I THINK SHE IS DRIVEN BY SELF PRESERVATION.. IT SEEMS THAT SHE HAS AN UNDERLYING HATRED OF WHITE MALES. SHE EXPIRES TO CHANGE THE PRESENT SYSTEM, AS DOES PRESIDENT OBAMA. THERE IS A CONSPIRANCY GOING ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO DESTROY FREE AMERICA. AND LITTLE BY LITTLE IT IS RELEASED TO REEK HAVOC ON AN UNSPECTING PEOPLE.
RUSSIA RECOGNIZES WHAT IS HAPPENING BY AN ARTICAL THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN ONE OF THIER PAPERS. IT SAID THAT AMERICA WAS GOING TOWARD TO MARXISM BT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING OVER THE AUTO INDUSTRY AND BY ELECTING OBAMA AS PRESIDENT.

By HelenBAllen @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:56 AM

Isn't any one paying attention? Obama wants someone who: thinks like him, agrees with him 100%, embraces his values and the h... with what America wants. History will prove, Obama was the most dangerous man ever to rule America.
Our forefathers would be furious if they were alive today to see how Obama is trampling our Constitution. If those cowards in Washington don't stand up and say no to Sonomayor's appointment, then they deserve what they're gonna get and Obama will rule as a dictator not as a President. I can't believe people haven't marched on Washington. We like sheep are being led to a Socialist Communist Government.

By font @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:46 AM

No real news here since her nomination echoes the same propaganda that got Obama elected--the distraction of the first black man to enter the White House trumped scrutiny of ideology, policy, experience. Yet the frightening part of Sotomayor's inevitable confirmation by a Congress that worships the Savior-in-Chief, is the fact that Harry Reid admitted that he has never read ANY of her court opinions and hopes that before it's all over he doesn't have to. But I've learned to expect nothing less from Democrats that common sense be hanged as long as it "feels" right.

By nancy512 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:44 AM

This is too important an issue for the GOP to cave. They should boldly call this out for what it is, or continue to stand for nothing. The people should get a good look at who's running the country and what they are about. If Republicans are just slaves to polls and worrying about the hispanic vote they are doomed to mediocrity. By 2012 it's going to be about the Obama economy - Hispanics will vote for who offers the best life for themselves and their families just like most people. The GOP should push back on this with confidence and take it right into the healthcare and cap & trade debates. Because if those go through - that's it - we're Europe.

By jackthegreat @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:36 AM

I agree that you cannot make a comment such as racist and keep an open debate from getting personal. But since I am not part of an open debate, I will use the term; I believe that she is a racist. As a 29 year old white male, I see the liberal view giving way to this form of racism constantly. The mentality is beyond me to say it is OK to talk the way the nominee did in her speech because she is from a class that is not white. I feel like I can always go back to the argument that if I stood up and stated that I am sure that my heritage of growing up in middle class, white neighborhood better prepared me to make decisions than those raised in a lower class ethnic community, I would be labeled a racist. Why doesn't it go the other way? The empathy is continuing to go too far, and it will continue to erode the fabric that made this country great: Hard working, intelligent risk takers that see the freedom of the United States as the foundation for development as a society. Giving away the rewards of the risk takers to the people sitting at home looking for a handout will eventually take the spirit out of the risk takers and the United States will completely fall apart.

By Ronda5942 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:31 AM

Of crouse it will be a travesty when she is confirmed, but we all know there's not much Republicans can do to prevent it. The Dems.have government locked down, as far as any disagreement to its policies and nominations concerned. Forget it. It's a done deal. We're getting exactly what Obama intended from the beginning -- total control of every aspect of our lives -- and he'll get it, because of morons who put him there who thought they'd get a handout.

By dianeremarx @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:27 AM

Minorities have long cried out against racism in the white community and things have change for the better in the last 50 years. I think it times that minority groups in the US look at their own racism against whites and their negative stereotypes of white people that they keep playing over and over, with the help of the liberal politicians and the libera media.

64% of the population in the US is white. If I went to Cuba I would be in the minority. Should I be intolerant and prejudice of Cubans just because I'm in the minority in Cuba? Should I demand that I'm represented in larger percent than the Cubans in business and in government? NO! But that is exactly what I see in this country: intolerance towards white people and their religion, which is Christian, just because we're in the majority.

I personally do not want to see Judge Sotomayor on the Supreme Court because as I see her comments as sexist and racist. I have no problem with Sotomayor's race or sex but do have a problem with her insentivity to white people and her belief that a judge makes the law, not interpret it.

By jmen @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:27 AM

The country can not afford to have a person with special interests pushing their agenda from the highest court in the United States of America. It is bad enough the courts are inundated with lobbyists pushing their agenda's. Now we want to take a chance on having one person push the agenda of a certain group on the American people? We need a unbiased individual that will uphold the original constitution and Judge based upon what the law of the land is, not try to change it for the good of one group. She should not be confirmed.

By rlgreenjr @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:21 AM

Mr. Speaker:

The following comments were posted by me in a response to an article by my state senator, John Cornyn. From your article, I believe that we are "on the same page" with regard to the approach that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee should take in their questioning of Judge Sotomayor.
=========

I, too, would like to see my Senator “man up,” do his homework, and politely ask the serious, thoughtful and probing questions, the answers to which will, hopefully, enable the Judiciary Committee to ascertain the temperment of this nominee to sit on the Supreme Court and consistently make decisions in accordance with the U.S. Constitutution and the rule of law.

In my personal opinion, the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is just one more premeditated step in President Obama’s overall plan to consolidate power in the federal government and remake America into a socialist state that would be the polar opposite of that which the Founders envisioned. The numerous “glowing” accolades based solely on her “unique” struggle in life is a reeking red herring put forth by the same ideologues who vilified an extremely well-qualified hispanic, Miguel Estrada and a very-well qualified African-American, Clarence Thomas, both of whom had “inspiring” and “unique” backgrounds, and also overcame significant obstacles in life to become imminent, well-respected jurists. Unfortunately, those two men had a the same view of their role as a judge…that being to INTERPRET existing law rather than to intrude upon the duty of legislatures to “make” law. The U.S. Constitution is what it is…nothing more, nothing less; and the role of a Justice on our Supreme Court is to determine whether or not a lower court’s ruling conformed to the precepts of that document and the rights guaranteed therein. Determinations based on any view through rose-colored or brown-tinted glasses is just not acceptable!

Before any Senator votes to promote this candidate to a lifetime appointment, the Senate as a whole, and the public at large, must be convinced by Judge Sotomayor’s answers that she WILL abide by the oath that she must SWEAR before God to become the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The words in the sworn oath are important; and, anything less than a sincere commitment by the candidate to cleave to those words should constitute “clear and convincing” grounds for her disqualification.

By carylkrieg @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:16 AM

There should be a cry of outrage from every corner of the nation - Dems and Reps alike....haven't heard anything! The Republicans need some stiff backbone to stand up and voice their (hopefully) dissent of the President's choice of Sotomayor. The "Law" is to be upheld by the Supreme Court. Empathy and life experiences are not the "Law". This candidate needs to be stopped now.

By Jim Violette @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:10 AM

Racist? Maybe. Foolish? Definitely. Making a blanket statement such as this directed against any group or unknown individual declares a lack of wisdom. This is not a wise choice for the position.

By Scattergood @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:04 AM

While I agree with your remarks about Judge Sotomayor, Republicans have to face reality - we got our buts kicked in the last two elections. The voters have rejected the Bush governing approach of big government conservatism. We no longer have the votes to stop anything Obama. It pains me to see this road to socialism we're on and there is nothing we can do to stop it!

Our best hope is to drag out the legislative process as much as possible, voice our objections to the government expansion, then pick up the pieces when the government expansion leads to economic problems.

By itmanager00@msn.com @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:03 AM

This judge has clearly been 'groomed' by the democrats for this position. Her speeches do not match some (not all) of her actions.

She has just enough liberal activists rulings to satisfy the left and just enough correct rulings within the law to silence most elected republicans.

Once on the court she will be a severe activist judge and could threaten the fabric of our American Justice System.

Ask yourself, after getting to know the Obama administration these past several months, why she was selected ... nothing he has done has even come close to being centrist so it stands to reason this judge is a perfect pick for him.

By moderate @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:03 AM

I completely support Republican opposition to Sotomayor's nomination. I feel the worst thing a Judge can do is "pre-judge" an issue based on personal politics/policy. If Sotomayor wants to form policy she should be a legislator, not a Judge. As a lawyer and a female, I am personally disgusted that a member of the bench would have such bias views and express that bias publicly. I agree with Justice O'Connor's comments and hope that those sentiments prevail in the judicial system.

By jjerway @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:59 AM

Newt, your right on. After reading Sotomayor's speech, I was struck by the constant focus on race and gender numbers, and on her desire to make a difference on the bench. This shouldn't be the focus of a judge, it should be on fair and equal ruling under the law, not making policy. When she wonders if it is possible for a judge to transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law, then it seems to me she is not fit for the highest court if she cannont aspire to this standard or does not feel it is possible.

By GerryJ @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:48 AM

I should have also said that Republicans in the Senate should make their case clearly in the confirmation hearings and not fear of voter backlash. If they're silenced for fear we've lost the country.

The principal is equality under the law, not her race.

By grampster @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:43 AM

America is not a religious, gender, ethnic zero sum game. The judge suffers from the late 20th Century malady called Multiculturalism. Our national motto is E Pluribus Unum; from the many, one.

A supreme court justice's focus should be adherence to the principals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. She should be asked if she believes this in her core. If she does not, she should remove herself from consideration.

By GerryJ @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:42 AM

If racist is too strong, which it isn't, prejudice certainly is not. She is exactly what Obama wants on the court, an "Empathetic" person. Empathy may be appropriate in "Sentencing" but not in "Determining guilt or innocence, right or wrong, fair or unfair."

There is no defense of her hope that a Latina Woman is more capable of judging than a white man or of her chuckling statement that policy is made from the appeals court bench. It's a disclosure of what she believes.

She should be rejected on here record not her race.

By klhobbs1953 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:40 AM

Sotomayor & Pelozi should be exiled to a small island where they can play in the sand together & reminiscence about the good ole days when America almost lost its mind in thinking these two were possibly good for America. Thank goodness America is much too smart for that, huh?

By nancy512 @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:40 AM

Maybe calling her "a racist" was too strong, but I still agree with your original thought that if a white man had said those comments in reverse he would absolutely have been rejected. Double standards, special treatment, affirmative action, for certain people all serve to further divide us. If we are ever to have true equality in our society, everyone has to stop focusing on color, race and gender. I don't feel guilty for being white, I'm sick & tired of the liberal hypocrisy - using race to further their agendas.

By JohninOhio @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:35 AM

I keep seeing the comment about the "development of the law". Just another scary thought in this speech. Does the law develop or is it the law? Does this go along with Obama's comment about the constitution being "a living, breathing document"? We need to stop this nomination while we can.

By gsimmons @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:26 AM

All that you have reported is in order. This lady is definitely warped as is our "President". I apologize but I am no fan of Obama and if I never heard him or his name again, I would not be sad.

She is a radical and she does not want equal opportunity to live a decent life for anyone but her so-called "family". She will not be able to judge on points of law because, frankly, she cannot remember past being a woman, being a latino and being a radical. Sotomayer (hope that is right) herself "violates central American principle" every time she opens her mouth as does Mr O.

We have to be judge as individuals and by our own merits. Even though we live as members of a group, each of us are different. All members of a given group or not of one mind about anything and do not have the same events occur in their lives at the same time. How can you judge one person by the vast majority? You cannot do this and do it with impartiality and justice in mind.

So she is "LATINO". Great, I am Cherokee, English and mutt-so what. I am also an American and trying very hard to hold onto the pride I have in that fact.

Are we as Americans now to be faced with being forced to conform to the latin way of life or can we, as Latins, Irish, Blacks, American Indians, and any other nationallity within our borders JUST NOT LIVE TOGETHER AS AMERICANS? What happened to that principle? What happened to our CONSTITUTION? I trust it is still in force.

As to the foods she ate, Americans of all races have eaten much the same things, played the same games, and visted grandma too. SO? What has that to do with anything? What counts now is what we believe and how genuinely we love this nation and the people within its borders.

This is trash as, to my mind, is she and is our "President". He should be impeached and removed from office. A good thing for him to do is to move to Iraq with his friends and work with them. That would be a good way for us to win that war.

By acoker @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:23 AM

Racism is racism. She believes having her ethnic background makes her a better choice than that of a different ethnic background. I don't believe for a split second that this woman can be impartial, and the Ricci case is simply the first of many where empathy ruled over the law. And, yes, Newt.... putting her on the Supreme Court, where no one can't overrule her, is something this ego-maniac thirsts for, and is certain to make our forefathers turn over in their graves.

By rp4cowboy @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:22 AM

After reading Sotomayor's speech - I personally think she has a chip on her shoulder for the American society that is white. She deems this in her opening comments because of her comment about the 'old-boy network'. This country was founded on people of all races and colors being able to make their own way in this society and not having free hand outs. We have somehow gone away from that tradition. If a white male or female were to make comments of this nature at a rally being covered by the news media, these people would defined racists and would be attacked. If we truly want to become a country that is not defined by racism we need to break the boundaries that separate and become as one treating each as the same.

By lromasz @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:06 AM

Being a white female, if I had said something like that I would have been thrown under the bus...with no forgiveness. What scares me if she would say something like that and Obama just 'explains it away' what will she do if she's appointed?

By mhollands@pamlab.com @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:02 AM

Though I would personally like to see a judge on the Supreme Court that is a strict interpreter of the Constitution, I fear this will not happen under our current president. The best we can hope for is someone that is just a liberal. As for Judge Sotomayor, she is neither - when will the Republicans get a backbone? When will one of them use the exact words BO used when referring to Justice Alito? It is time that another Supreme Court nominee gets "Borked"!!

By Indymac @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:01 AM

I WANT to have a positive attitude about the outcome of the Sotomayor hearings, but it's difficult when time and time again conservative legislators appear stunned into silence by the rampant political correctness in Washington. So, we contact those on the Judiciary Committee and pray.

Click Here to post a comment