1. Michael L. Wagner | 05.27.09

Racist? At any rate, Sotomayor is no Wise Woman–read her dissenting opinions:

+ Kelsey v. County of Schoharie = requiring a newly admitted jail inmate to disrobe in front of a corrections officer = strip search violation of the Fourth Amendment (and any reasonably intelligent corrections officer should know this); + USA v. Juan Vincent Gomez Castrillon = money laundering conviction should be vacated = evidence didn’t amount to guilty beyond a reason doubt = defendant drove $500,000 to meeting with agent / defendant was lookout / defendant had $6,000 on him…; + Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc = Trucking Company shouldn’t have rejected job applicants on medication that might impair driving ability = truck driving is a broad class of jobs (this though the employer only saw applicants as unfit to perform a certain job for which they were seeking applicants); + Thomas Pappas v. Mayor and Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York = Police Officer kept receiving letters asking for contributions, so he anonymously returned racially bigoted materials = he was fired = majority opinion—“For a New York City police officer to disseminate leaflets that trumpet bigoted messages expressing hostility to Jews, ridiculing African Americans and attributing to them a criminal disposition to rape, robbery, and murder, tends to promote the view among New York citizenry that those are the opinions of New York’s police officers.… In the words of Justice Holmes,‘A policeman may have a constitutional right to [speak his mind], but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.’”= dissent opinion—where an employee serves no supervisory role, the danger to an agency’s successful functioning is minimal = also the “statements” were made while off-duty = also anonymous nature—“… the Department should have swept the matter under the rug hoping no one would ever learn the facts; and if it chose instead to bring charges against Pappas, it has only itself to blame for the resulting harm to its reputation …”; + S.H. Croll v. M.Y.Croll = married couple (US Citizens) residing in Hong Kong got divorced and the Hong Kong Court decreed that the child can not be taken from Hong Kong without both parents consent = mother took the child to US = majority decision—child cannot be returned to father in Hong Kong = Dissent Opinion—child can be returned to Hong Kong; + L.N. Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda = Burmuda should be recognized as an independent state—rather than a British Overseas Territory; + USA v. J. Gori = as officers listened in, a busted drug dealer called his source = when source was busted with kilo of cocaine = said someone in apartment 1M had given him the cocaine = cops went into the lobby pending further instructions = when pizza delivery came to apartment = cops were afraid of being exposed = stood on either side of delivery guy = when door opened cops ordered everybody into the hall = guy consents to search of apartment = busted for cocaine…= majority opinion—quotes Katz (389 US at 351)“A suspect in her open doorway becomes ‘as exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her home.”= dissent opinion—“’[t]he right of the people to be secure in their … houses …’”=“…the Fourth Amendment has drawn a fine line at the entrance to the house.

2. Gavin | 05.27.09

I seriously doubt that any white male would face the same trials in life as a latina female. That’s just reality. I fail to see how this is racism and if it is, who cares? As a white male I don’t feel that Sotomayor is a threat to my rights and freedoms in the least.

I think the Gingrich should find something better to do with his time.

3. Adam | 05.27.09

Anyone who thinks that Sotomayor’s comment was racism doesn’t understand the English language, or how to understand what someone is conveying. What she said is that a person with deep life experience should know more than a person with less life experiences. That’s it! If you think that means more than that then you just plain WANT it to mean something else.

4. Mark | 05.28.09

You know one gets really tired of special interests pushing their dogma by half stating facts. What Newt failed to do was to put Sonia’s retort in proper text leaving out the most important point, being: Regardless of who you are, if you have experience in, or have experienced something, you are better able to deal with similar instances than a person having to guess their way through it.

And on politics, this blog is written by a current ex-lifelong Republican. They lost the election and aren’t big enough to admit it and get on with supporting efforts “For the Common Good”……..supporting citizens of America.

Mark

5. D. Jackson | 05.28.09

If the comment of Sotomayor were to be edited or rephrased to exchange or change the word “better” to “different” would Newt be as belicose in his commentary? All judicial persons who are charged to give opinions, inherently
must believe their experience makes their opinions not only different but better than anothers without the experience. I get Sotomayors statement and meaning without the belicose Gingrich helping me decipher its meaning and intent.

6. David A. Flory | 05.28.09

Gingritch has a good point.

Are we holding Sotomayor to a lower standard because she is a member of an ethnic group that happens to be currently popular with the liberal establishment?

Non-whites would have good reason to doubt the fairness of judge who felt that a “wise Caucasian” would make better decisions. Non-hispanics should have the same concerns about Justice Sotomayor.

7. ETSJ | 05.28.09

Mr. Orr,
You ask if Gingrich should be allowed to express his opinion, the answer is “yes, absolutly.” However, perhaps you should include the actual comments by Sotomayor in context and not just the totally out of context line that the right is touting as “racist.” If you take the time to actually look at what she says in that speach, and not just the republican talking point, it is clear that Gingrich and the others on the loony right are simplky trying to smear her.

8. John Kohler | 05.28.09

Of all people who should speak out about Sotomayer as a racist.
I am reminded of the Biblical story of the town elders bringing to Jesus the woman taken in adultry to get judgment about stoning her. Mr Gingrich might do best by looking at his past record before picking up stones.

9. DFFL | 05.28.09

Of course it is not racism. Racism has long been defined by the left as derogatory or bigot comments made only by males or white people. Sonia is just a a good old girl.

10. Simplicio T. Soriao | 05.28.09

The nominee appears intellectually dishonest. Gleaning from her past pronouncements, her comments are worn out and tired. Flirting with the race card, she goes on to say that a Latina woman is just as good as any white man. That, to me, is pure and simple rubbish; it is her personal agenda she is trying to promote.

11. Jim Vandelly | 05.28.09

In my 28 years as a teacher of Government, I witnessed, among my students– from here and around the world–some racism, sexism, reverse-racism,and religious intolerance. Everyone has prejudices. The important behavior is that we stop generalizing, and practice political and social tolerance. Our thoughts belong to ourselves. Our actions of intolerance cannot be “tolerated” in our country–by anyone, including Supreme Court Justices.

12. Richard McDonough | 05.28.09

What the porcine third rate college teacher and architect of the hit on America perpetrated by the weepublican party “thinks”, is not really relevant. Or worth space in Mrs. Eddy’s legacy, the CSM.

13. syed salamah ali mahdi | 05.28.09

Enough of such narrow minded, chicken brained shameless Republicans! I often wonder how they can sleep at night or look at their faces in the mirror. They are worthy of our pity.

14. Greg | 05.28.09

A white male from the South calling someone a racist? Please! Gingrich once again reveals his true self. He can’t help himself.

15. Elores | 05.28.09

Newtered racist Republicans. What can you expect. If Obama nominated JESUS he would also disapprove because he was from Palestine.

16. Bruno Unna | 05.28.09

Sotomayor words are being judged, I think, out of context. What was she talking about? Perhaps she was talking about a situation that took place in a “latino” neighborhood. Perhaps she was addressing an issue related to Latin America. If that is the case, Gingrich is completely missing the mark.

Reversing the argument… yes, let’s do it: perhaps Gingrich, being white as he seems to be, holds a better background to understand the kind of problems which emerge in a purely white-race environment. So what?

The real point behind the argument, I think is that Gingrich is trying to spin-doctor Sotomayor somewhat-careless words. To get some political advantage, I’d dare to speculate.

Anyway: for me, this a pretext to think about what really constitutes a racist attitude. What is it like to be a racist? In my opinion, for the sake of political-correctness the world is making some very serious mistakes. Like censoring what shouldn’t be censored (is it *anything* that should be?). Like allowing someone exploit a historic tragedy (which, at any rate, maybe wasn’t caused for racist reasons) for his/her own benefit.

17. Ron Boccieri | 05.28.09

Funny, Newt didn’t use the whole quote. “… would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male WHO HAS NOT LIVED THAT EXPERIENCE.” Come on, Newt, grow up. Yes, you can turn that around but I’ll be dipped if that amounts to racism.

18. R Anthony | 05.28.09

I can’t imagine how Newt Gingrich can criticize someone else’s remarks as racist while he is the epitomy of white racism. Now, we are supposed to ignore Newt’s comments while we all twist what was always acknowledged about white racism. Can we find some other civil reason to say why this lady should not be appointed to the Supreme Court? If we have to scrutinize every comment made by those who are currently on the bench, we could easily dismiss every single one. I don’t care who made racist comments, white or black, only that they possess the qualifications and honor the constitution that are required for that position. Racism is something we have to live with and the people who created this atomosphere should button up.

19. marty | 05.28.09

I would hope that a wise Anglo male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn’t lived that life.

20. Dave Smith | 05.28.09

What???!!!! Newt Gingrich pushing “Political Correctness”??!!! “I’m shocked I tell you shocked!!!” in my best Claude Rains from “Casablanca” Sorry for the ageist qoute.

21. Doug Lawrence | 05.28.09

Sure, context is important, yadda, yadda… What are we doing here! We have a woman with an extensive judicial record and the only details I can get are snippets of speeches? I think maybee conservatives should be asking questions about this nominee. She made (in my opinion) an extremely bad call in an eminent domain case. Property rights should be a hot button issue, and it is an issue where the conservative beliefs are more in line with american values than liberal beliefs. At the least it is a crucial debate about the role of government. But I guess calling names is a better idea? Maybee we should call her a “socialist democrat” and see if that fixes the supreme court. Come on guys.

22. curious | 05.28.09

Makes you wonder — is Newt Gingrich a double-agent working for the Democrats? With Republican demographics vis a vis women and Latinos at current levels, ginning up this kind of phony-baloney outrage ain’t exactly helpful…

23. jal64 | 05.28.09

Someone please define a “better” conclusion. In whose mind? I was taught to believe Lady Justice is blind. Isn’t that the whole purpose for the blindfold on her bust? The law should be the law for everyone, not just those who receive a judge’s “empathy”.

As for one’s dirt-poor or otherwise “tough” background being a qualification, where was this outlook when the debate was over Justice Thomas? His life experience certainly is at least equal to that of Ms. Sotomayor. Is this a desirable quality only if one’s judicial outlook happens to appeal to left or right?

24. AdamG | 05.29.09

“Are we holding Sotomayor to a lower standard because she is a member of an ethnic group that happens to be currently popular with the liberal establishment?”

We shouldn’t be. The only people that seem to be holding Sotomayor to a lower standard are the actual racists. Nothing that she said denotes racism, it denotes an opinion based on personal experience in a racial context. There was nothing derogatory or racially degrading about her comment. Sotomayor’s comments do in fact rely on the truth that white males generally have it easier than latina females.

25. Joe from Boston | 05.29.09

Personally, I don’t think Ms. Sotomayor’s comments and actions are any different from any other minority I’ve ever known. It’s been my experience that minorities use their status to their advantage, either by taking advantage of the system that caters to them or by using their minority status as a shield to ward off criticism, warranted or otherwise. I don’t see this as being bad or good. It just is.

I think we as a country are moving towards a new paradigm on race and creed as a country, and her appointment to the bench will in some ways highlight these new realities. What’s most interesting to me is that the different attitudes are not so much divided by conservatives or liberals, but by differences between generations.

26. berdawn | 05.29.09

the entire quote is pretty innocuous. the ability of people to think they understand what she was saying from two sentences in an EIGHT PAGE speech is pathetic. Research and then come to a conclusion but do not rely on those who benefit from your ignorance or laziness.

27. Ward Kelly | 05.29.09

Getting tagged as a “racist” only happens to white males. This double standard has been going on for quite some time….the problem is that it is happening in the halls of higher education. See the left’s defense of what Jeremiah Wright said in his sermons and the current ridiculous attacks on this blog against Gingrich. Attacking Gingrich assertations of racism is simply racist itself when looking at what Sonia said at Boalt Hall. Gingrich didn’t mention race, SHE DID! People are talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. Total double standard on this. Only white males can be racist to the left. What a joke argument. What Sonia said was unequivocally racist & sexist.

It’s incredible to see the defense of Judge Sonia’s remarks at …..of all places Berkeley. But then again, Mario Savio was only for the free speech of his spoiled brat friends.

For anyone with half a brain, please look at Sonia’s comments at Berkeley. It was her that mentioned race, it was her that compared between races, and it was her that made an assumption that one person via life experiences because of race was more qualified than another. Gingrich is merely pointing that out. If you really want to pay lip service to a very important qualification of life experience, please look to parents of children, not whether someone grew up in Oakland or in the Bronx.

From her own words, Sonia was the racist on this one. And now she is up for being a Supreme Court Justice????

28. Ben | 05.30.09

I doubt this woman is really a racist. She’s too smart. If you are as smart as she is, and you are a racist, you would never be stupid enough to sa what she did. She was obviously pandering to a left leaning audience at Berkley. She wanted them to see she was a powerful woman who can say whatever she feels and who will stand with them and their left leaning ideals. The point Newt would like to get out of this is that she either is not very smart, or she is very, very liberal and unapologetically arrogant.

29. Jere Burton | 05.30.09

The Republican Party has really sunk about as low as it can get. They are trying to grab anything they can to cause turmoil with the American people.Instead of the Republican party trying to work to unify the American people they continue to try to divide our country. Judge Sotomayor said nothing that is racist, she only stated a true fact. The only people that can make something racial out of her statement is someone that is truly a racist. The Republican party should get rid of those old bald headed bigots with the same old tired ideas that got this country into a mess and look to the future with some new and youthful ideology..this is the only thing that will help bring our country where it needs to be.

30. Bryan Long | 05.30.09

Sotomayor’s remarks were about appointments to the Supreme Court, where a body of judges makes a decision, not a single judge. Every judge should be subject to deep consideration of their qualifications and wisdom. But as a COURT, it is hard not to feel that a hispanic woman will bring greater representation, balance and wisdom to our highest court than would yet another white man. That is not racism, that is wisdom. If I were to argue that the court should be composed of all women, or all blacks, or all hispanics, that would be racist. Arguing for some representation from our diversity — without compromise of quality — is not racism. Get a grip people.

31. sbp | 05.30.09

The comment was obviously taken out of context and edited by Sotomayor’s detractors. Playing this kind of whiffle ball with the issues has long been Newt’s forte, but I hope people are wiser to his tricks now than when they were 10 years ago. It’s an old play out of an old playbook.

32. Tom Moore | 05.30.09

“That’s straight-up racism in the minds of many. Their argument is simple. All you have to do is reverse it.”

Uh, it already has been reversed. Alito said something similar about his experience with an Italian-American family. No one cared.

33. MikeWF | 06.16.09

We all know that the “Main Stream Media” abandoned all pretense at objectivity long ago and news reporting has suffered as a result. So, now we want to go down that same road with Supreme Court justices? Are you kidding me? The whole point of being a judge is to put aside one’s subjective feelings and to rule based on THE FACTS, THE LAW and THE CONSTITUTION. Of course, as humans, we often fail at that (and we should be held to account if we do!). But to actually CELEBRATE the notion that one will be bringing a “FEMALE LATINA POINT OF VIEW” to the bench suggests a very serious problem.