Gingrich Calls Sotomayor “Racist”

sue gold: "I really did not think the Republicans would go there. But they did!"

Go where exactly? In your criticize of Republicans, you've revealed that you too detected racially insensitive tones in Judge Sotomayor's past comments. Apparently, Republicans weren't the only one's to "go there." Thanks for the confirmation.

I really did not think the Republicans would go there. But they did!

I've read her entire Berkeley speech, and contextualizing her comment about a Latina woman being a better judge than a white man doesn't really change the meaning - it is still racist. This, combined with her role in upholding Ricci v. DeStefano, makes me very concerned about her ability or willingness to judge citizens of all races and both sexes equally before the law.

If a white man nominated for the USSC had said a similar thing, he would be pilloried as a racist. Sotomayer also goes on saying more things about her being a "Latina" woman being such a unique thing. I would prefer someone nominated for the court to be concerned with equality of the law and not so hung up on her skin color.

Paul Wall: "you know very well she did not say "smarter.""

She didn't need to as it was implied when she said: ". . . a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male . . ." To say a "wise" Latina will reach "better conclusions" is the same as saying Latinas are smarter. Just read what she said for what she said.

Paul Wall: "she said that minority judges bring to the table experiences that (most) white males don't have."

No she didn't. Read the quote I provided above. She said Latinas and their "rich experience" will frequently reach a "better conclusion" than white males without that rich Latina experience. Again, she asserts that Latinas are inherently capable of better judgments.

Paul Wall: "not what Rush said, not what O'Reilly said . . . Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and the whole laundry list of radical-right hate spinners"

For your information, I have come to my own conclusions on Judge Sotomayor without the aid of any outside conservative influence. Think of it this way -- great minds think alike. In any case, the conclusion is the correct one -- Judge Sotomayor is a racist and a sexist.

Paul Wall: ". . . have no idea of what it is like to live as a minority in this nation"

This is very similar to Judge Sotomayor's views on race. One cannot properly or fairly "judge" a situation without having been a minority. I disagree and thankfully, so does our Constitution. Which brings us to what this is really about. This isn't about minority experiences or the experiences of anyone. Instead, this is about nominating a supreme court justice who believes justice is blind and that our Constitution is the strict law of the land.

Paul Wall: "she is no racist, no by a long shot. just read or listen to HER words . . ."

That's the problem -- I have listened to here words, and have found her to be racist, by definition. Not only is Judge Sotomayor a racist, but she's sexist too. If you don't like it, I suggest you lobby your liberal representatives for a new nominee that is actually qualified.

Dewde: "some rather 'easy' usage of the word racism here"

Racism takes many forms and can have many shades. Often times racism is subtle and can be difficult to detect for those perpetrating it. By definition, Judge Sotomayor holds racist views and therefore is a racist. That's not my opinion, that's fact based on what she said and the definition of racism. Sadly, because Judge Sotomayor is a minority many are unable or unwilling to acknowledge these facts and hold her accountable.

Dewde: "does that mean she is somehow unqualified"

I think it's the racism and sexism that makes her unqualified.

So many people are looking to scuttle the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by talking about little things she may have said. However, they are all looking in the wrong place. Sonia Sotomayor either buried or ignored the complaint (and evidence) of very serious judicial misconduct by one of the judges she was supervising. No one should be on the Supreme Court who does that.

Anonymous | May 28, 2009 6:59:07 PM---you know very well she did not say "smarter." please, for God's sake liste. or view the ENTIRE speech. not what Rush said, not what O'Reilly said. she said that minority judges bring to the table experiences that (most) white males don't have. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and the whole laundry list of radical-right hate spinners have no idea of what it is like to live as a minority in this nation and they are fully and venomously dismissive and contemptuous of the minority experience in America. these white men foment racial hatred and divisiveness. please never compare Judge Sotomayor with any of these right wing bigots. she is no racist, no by a long shot. just read or listen to HER words and perhaps you shall finally understand.

some rather 'easy' usage of the word racism here, I'm sure many here are not trying to equate what Sotomayor said to the KKK or Aryan Nation.

it's easy to understand why Obama chose her just by reading some of the posts here, she will bring common sense with her as Justice.

Is there a political calculation to the nomination,.. of course.., does that mean she is somehow unqualified,.. no.., historically, is she an 'activist' judge, ...no... are there some who disagree with some of her opinions ,, of course.......is what she said 'racist'... of course not and if you bother to read or watch all of it you could not come to the conclusion that she was 'racist' unless you are interested in playing semantic games.

This article is bogus. Imagine a white male saying “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,’” VS what she actually said are two completely different statements. When she refers to herself as the "latina woman" having experience that the "white man" wouldnt have are completely different than saying than simply saying she is better for the job, or even smarter. It is true that she may have experience than a white man would have, and a black man, and a chinese man, she simply said "white" because we live in a country well that has always been the dominant race, and yes, she would have knowledge that a white man wouldnt have, and he would have knowledge that she doesn't have. It's about equality.

Paul Wall: ". . . are white, mostly uneducated, males who do nothing but make Judge Sotomayor's point."

What is it that makes Judge Sotomayor's point? Being male, being white, or being uneducated.

According to Judge Sotomayor, just being male and white makes you a lesser judge than your average Latina. Apparently, one's level of education is completely irrelevant. After all, Latina's are naturally smarter, according to Judge Sotomayor. Obama and Democrats should be ashamed of their racist, sexist, nominee.

oh, Paul, he's a politician! i get it. the people in my community are neither violent nor irrational. if they heard Gingrich's speech they could comprehend very well what he was saying. if Gingrich doesn't want to give his "Spanish as a ghetto language" speech to certain communities you have to ask yourself why. Gingrich isn't a politician right now is he? or perhaps he is running for office and i am unaware? he wouldn't give his little hate speech because that's what it is and he and people like Limbaugh (et al) are cowards who would never dare address the people they disparage and not because they are politicians but because they are cowards.

Paul, you will have to forgive many of us who have listened and read over the years to people like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Gingrich and Savage and come to the conclusion that these men are racists. Gingrich because of his comments (not just his recent ones) has lost credibility. Limbaugh never had any. to hear Limbaugh talk about other people being racists is pathetic. some people will never be taken seriously. those who take them seriously are white, mostly uneducated, males who do nothing but make Judge Sotomayor's point.

"i live in an Hispanic community in a large american city and predict a fat lip to anyone who uttered any such foolish drivel as Gingrich did."

So you're saying that the people who live there are irrational and violent? That really is what you're saying, though I know it's not what you intended...but it's evidently what you think.

"Gingrich would never make those comments to certain audiences and not because he would be misunderstood but that he would be understood."

Of course he wouldn't! He's a politician (like Obama) and they are generally quite cowardly and they seem to have an inability to tell people anything other than what they want to hear...even when it's the truth and hearing would actually be beneficial to them. But as audiences are also generally quite cowardly and unable to handle the truth, this practice would greatly cut into the politicians vote tally. Can't have that, can we?

cool, Paul. i challenge you to go to ask Latinos how they feel. yeah language is a tool but people use tools and Gingrich was talking about people not tools. i live in an Hispanic community in a large american city and predict a fat lip to anyone who uttered any such foolish drivel as Gingrich did. it's only not racist when you say such things to special groups on university campuses or AM radio. Gingrich would never make those comments to certain audiences and not because he would be misunderstood but that he would be understood.

Ryan C: "So he doesn't think Spanish is the language of the ghetto, he just said so by accident?"

No, you and other liberal race-baiters like you just misunderstood. Again, your weak attempts at redirecting criticism from Judge Sotomayor's racism and sexism and her confirmation hearings are pathetic and irrelevant. Let's get back to you defending a racist, sexist, liberal.

"everyone, including Gingrich, knows what he meant by calling Spanish a "language of the ghetto." it has nothing to do with political views. it's racist pure and simple and disingenuous to imply otherwise."

I believe you may be projecting your own views, however repressed, onto others. A language is not a race. A language is a tool to communicate with the people of a given time or place. If you don't have that tool, you will not succeed in that time or place, and you will be ghettoized. That's a fact.

I say this based on the assumption that you actually know the definition and history of the "ghetto", rather than familiarity with it only from an American rap song. Ghettos exist in every country and culture of the world, and race is only one of many determinants of becoming ghettoized. Language barriers are another.

paul | May 28, 2009 5:45:06 PM---everyone, including Gingrich, knows what he meant by calling Spanish a "language of the ghetto." it has nothing to do with political views. it's racist pure and simple and disingenuous to imply otherwise.

"He called Spanish the language of the ghetto."

Spanish is a language of a ghetto if you are in an English speaking country and that is the only language you speak. How successful do you think people who live in Spanish-only neighborhoods in this country? Or in Brazil? Or Quebec?

How successful do you think I will be in China speaking only English? I will have two choices -- learn to speak Chinese and function and succeed in their society -- or refuse to learn Chinese and isolate myself into a small enclave of people who speak only English and try to get by.

Again, you know this is true, but you are arguing merely for the sake of defending your partisan position.

Anonymous | May 28, 2009 5:30:28 PM---aren't you the race-baiter ma'am or sir? Gingrich did call spanish a "ghetto" language. so what if he apologized. it's what's in his heart. he is an irrelevant racist just like O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity. he's just a Limbaugh with an education. make no mistake he is a racist, a lifelong believer in white male privilege. those days are over.

Anonymous wrote "She alone will determine her qualifications for the Supreme Court. To this point she has proven unqualified." if it's her determination wouldn't she be qualified. if it's your or my determination isn't that a matter of opinion and politics. ultimately it is up to the US Senate. i hope she is approved. i believe she is correct in her assertion that someone with her background and life experiences would make better decisions (especially issues of equality and social justice as she asserts) than many white men. it is a fact that white men in this nation have been historically privileged and continue to be so. most have no idea what it is like to endure racism. there are legends on the court, like Justice William J. Brennan, who would be exceptional. i feel her perspective and views are valid and relevant. her education and judicial experience only add to that.