Gingrich calls Sotomayor “racist”

2009 May 27
tags:
by jaehwan

artnewtSee CNN story here.

When are these Repubs going to realize how pointless their accusations are?  107 of 111 Supreme Court justices have been White men.  43 of 44 U.S. Presidents have been White men.  The vast majority of Fortune 500 CEOs are White men.  Before Pelosi, ALL of the Speakers of the House, Mr. Gingrich, were White men.  To make it seem like the playing field is equal when the playing field is clearly unequal would strike any rational person as being incorrect.

Her experience is different from yours, Mr. Gingrich.  If they had more people like her in positions of power, you would probably realize this.

And please, get off Twitter.

from → News

36 Comments leave one →
2009 May 27
Kyle permalink

No racist Justice should be allowed to become U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Sotomayor must withdraw her nomination now.

2009 May 27
John D permalink

What Judge Sotomayor said is orthodox, politically correct, acceptable, and unfortunately racist.

I can admire someone that graduates summa cum laude, I can admire someone that pulled themselves up and grew up in a rough neighborhood, as I’ve had to do the same myself.

No one can deny her efforts or her achievements, but to refer to herself as a “wise Latina” and say that would make her draw a better conclusion than a white man, is were she ventures from being self congratulatory to racist.

She worked hard, her experience is rich, she pulled herself up, All great things, if she would not have brought up race or claimed it made her better than a white person, there would only be things to admire.

If you have trouble seeing the racism in her remarks, replace where she says white man, with black man, and the racism becomes obvious.

2009 May 27
jaehwan permalink

John D:

“If you have trouble seeing the racism in her remarks, replace where she says white man, with black man, and the racism becomes obvious.”

That’s my point–you can’t replace white man with black man. There is a racial historical trend that has elevated one group of people over others. 107 of 111 Supreme Court justices have been White men–not black men, not women, not American Indian men, not Asian men, not Latino men. Bringing a person with a different experience diversifies the Court, brings a new narrative to the Court, and helps bring new ideas to the Court. She brings a different angle to the Court that comes from her experience as a Latina woman.

2009 May 27
scribe15 permalink

“Please get off twitter”….Like you own twitter?

And Judge S. didn’t say her experience was just different from that of white males, she said her experience would allow her to make BETTER rulings than theirs.

Webster-racism- “involving the idea that one’s own race is superior.”

You can’t explain Judge S’s quote by saying its’ out of context- the context doesn’t change the meaning, if you read it in its entirety, and you can’t sweep it under the rug by misrepresenting it as you have done - she didn’t reference just reference racial differences, she referenced racial superiority. Can you explain that?

2009 May 27
jaehwan permalink

Haha…just because Gingrich is a Twit doesn’t mean he should be on Twitter.

And no, she didn’t say ispo facto that race would enable her to make better rulings, nor did she reference any kind of racial superiority. Have you seen the speech? If not, here’s a larger excerpt:

http://poligiontoday.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/limbaugh-and-gingrich-overreact-once-again/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270005

In our private conversations, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] 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 am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

It seems pretty rational to me. Considering that we have so many Hispanic Americans in this country and 0 out of 111 Supreme Court Justice jobs have been filled by Hispanic Americans in the last 233 years, I’d say she has a pretty strong case that her experience as a female minority matters.

2009 May 27
scribe15 permalink

“you can’t replace black man with white man”, due, you say, to this nations’ long history of inequality. So let me get this straight- you can say any outrageous, denigrating thing about whites if you are black or Latino and you get a pass due to history? Nice.

2009 May 27
Diana permalink

Blah! Blah! Blah! you people are just jealous! You can not phantom a hispanic holding such a prestigious office and so you will nit pic and twist words. Get over it! The time has arrived where other races will hold higher offices. Learn to live with it! She is a well educated individual that comes very highly recommended. We do need a more diverse supreme court group. So don’t hate, just participate!

2009 May 27
jaehwan permalink

Scribe,

Um, no, I didn’t say that. Did you see her speech above? Did you read anything “outrageous” or “denigrating” about Whites within her words? I certainly didn’t.

I’m just saying that there isn’t symmetry in the power relationships of race relations in this country. Simply replacing White with Black leads to false arguments.

2009 May 27
scribe15 permalink

I did see the speech, and she most certainly did say that the experience of a Latina woman should allow her to make Better decisions in court than a white male. That tape has been replayed about a hundred times now, so you must be willfully “mishearing” it. Perhaps because it is indefensible?

And ohhhh, you called Gingrich a Twit- how clever.

2009 May 27
jaehwan permalink

“And ohhhh, you called Gingrich a Twit- how clever.”

Haha…I thought you’d enjoy that one!

Will you answer the question? I’ll ask it again. Did you read anything “outrageous” or “denigrating” about Whites within her words? It seems to me she was perfectly respectful of everyone, white or not. She wasn’t being mean. She was being rational, logical, and clear, something that is good for a Supreme Court justice.

As for my remark about the speech, key in on the term “ipso facto.” It’s crucial to understanding what I wrote. If you check the context of the quote and the references to Holmes and Cardozo, it makes even more sense.

2009 May 27
scribe15 permalink

jaehwan- well, she is saying that she is imbued with wisdom due to the richness of her own life and heritage, allowing her to ” more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life.” ie, there is a deficiency in the life experience of the white man which makes his judgement inferior to hers. maybe that isn’t outrageous and denigrating, but it is bias.

I acknowledge racial inequities which sadly still exist, but don’t get how that leads you to the “false arguments” line of thought. Maybe you could elaborate?

2009 May 27
scribe15 permalink

I just reread the piece above, and it seems pretty ipso facto-y to me.

“whether born from experience or inherent physiological and cultural differences…a factor I abhor less than my colleague,.. our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Presumably, the difference it makes favors the particular gender/national origin of the judge - isn’t that something that judges shouldn’t celebrate, but guard against, an affinity for their own particular tribe?

2009 May 27
jaehwan permalink

Scribe,

Actually Sotomayer brings up a great example of wisdom in that very speech. She says, “Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.” Remember that the feminist movement during the 60’s and 70’s were led by women like Friedan and Steinem, not men. Their “wisdom” came from their experience. Men just didn’t have that experience, and therefore they didn’t have that wisdom. This isn’t a coincidence.

As for false arguments, you can’t say that bringing a White guy to the court will diversify it the same way you can say the same of a Hispanic woman. That’s the Twit’s argument–and it’s false because it ignores the reason race is an issue in the first place.

As for your quote above, she said nothing about inferiority or superiority. She just mentions that one’s views are different. That’s typically the case, which is why you’ll often see issues break down along lines of race and gender.

2009 May 27
scribe15 permalink

Also, “for others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experience of others.”

Isn’t that true of all of us? Including, perhaps, Judge S., who seems to feel that her particular life experience has made her all-knowing?

2009 May 27
jaehwan permalink

It is true of all of us, but you’re using the “symmetry” argument again. If 107 of 111 justices had been Hispanic women, if 43 of 44 Presidents had been Hispanic women, then I’d argue that maybe we should get a White guy in there. Such is not the case. She’s not all-knowing, but she comes from a background that provides wisdom that someone with a more typical profile might not have.

2009 May 27
scribe15 permalink

“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 has not lived that life.” That is where the “I’m better than you” bit comes in, Jaehwan.

I get that in the past male justices have been dogs and ignored womens’ rights….but that doesn’t give future justices the moral green light to discriminate as some sort of pay-back.

k then- it has been interesting - do have to get back to life. S.

2009 May 27
jaehwan permalink

Well yes, with respect to certain decisions, i.e. gender discrimination, one would think that a female judge would be more informed. I would think so anyway.

Thanks for visiting. Come back anytime!

2009 May 27
mT permalink

Damn Byron, you have so much patience. It must be like conveying the concept of colors to a blind person from birth a lot of times.

2009 May 27
Leon permalink

Conveying the concept of colors to a blind person is nothing compared to conveying the concepts of white privilege to a white person. That’s more like trying to teach algebra to a rock.

2009 May 27
uRB4N permalink

I love how white men love to impose the “just replace the term white with ” to determine if something is racist.

When you use the same concept, they state that you’re looking too much into the issue.

Case in point, they love to explain that there should be no such thing as a hate crime because crime is crime. However, when a white person is a victim based on race, they get all uppity as to why it wasn’t labeled a hate crime. There is absolutely no consistence in what they’re saying.

I also want to take the time to address Rush’s retarded statement that Sotomayor is a “reverse-racist.” First, “reverse-racism” is where white people are denied their right to be racist. Second, racism is racism. Using the term “reverse racism” places a special type of racism that only harms and is unique to whites.

Even when whining, you’re still trying to single yourselves out as having special privileges.

2009 May 27
mT permalink

To Leon

…and it’s true these privileged whites you speak of often claim colorblindness…hence their inability to understand ‘concepts’ let alone truths. Damn! Now the code has been compromised, and they will come crying of racism and injustices suffered at the hands of the colored folks. Thanks a lot Leon.

2009 May 27
neiltownsend permalink

The link to poligiontoday is much appreciated. I enjoyed reading your concise yet sharp post. I hope you will continue to check out the blog!

2009 May 27
mojorider permalink

Some epistimologists have argued that all knowledge is rooted in experience. If I read the news correctly, Obama wanted to nominate someone whose life wasn’t simply that of the ivory tower of academia but someone who had life experiences that were in common with the average citizen. That this person was someone who was imbued with empathy and not someone with a cold, academically clinical, outlook and interpretation of the Constitution without regard to the actual effect that person’s decision would have in the real world.

As to whether or not she is a racist? Sounds to me like a diversionary tactic from the right wing extremists to quickly label her as a racist as an attempt to make themselves feel emboldened and relevant. It also seems like a way to keep circle jerking their extremist base.

2009 May 28
Robert permalink

I think the point has been missed - or at least changed in these discussuions. The purpose of a supreme court justice is to interpret the law (not to make it - That’s left up to our other ‘trusted’ politicians), something which should be fairly cut and dry (either a thing is legal, or it isn’t, and a decision can be made based on that) the ability to make such decisions should render the interpreters race/gender irrellevant. What should be important is the candidates familiarity with the laws of our country, and their past track record of leveling fair and just decisions based on the law.

Clearly someone’s background influences their judgement - that’s why a single judge NEVER makes these decisions alone. We’ve had minority justices in the past (Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall before him - and let’s not forget Sandra Day O’connor from ‘81 to 2006 or Ruth Ginsburg who took office in ‘93 and is still going.) Granted that’s not a huge track record, but I think to say that the supreme court is ruled by 9 white men is inaccurate - at least since 1967.

For me personally, I have no problem with her nomination, I think the flummox was to state “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.” If that statement were in reference to her ability to render decisions about gender discrimination more effectively, for example, then I think it would have been glossed over, but there appears to be no such reference (or I’m misreading it?!), which is what makes it offensive to many. What compounds it in many peoples eyes is that we’re not discussing something subjective, but someones ability to interpret laws.

2009 May 28
Leon permalink

Idealistically, we want our justices to be as impartial as possible, but no person can ever be completely unbiased. If the supreme court is ruled by a white male majority, then the decisions will more than likely be skewed by white male perspectives. And that is how we end up with our current laws and institutions (including the racist ones). These people are still human, not robots. That’s why I agree with the choice of a Latina woman precisely because she’s a Latina woman. She provides a check and balance to the white justices to ensure that we get the fairest interpretation of the laws that has the best interest of everyone in mind, not just the white majority. Gingrich’s accusations are just smokescreens to cover up for the fact that the white majority is seeing their advantage getting threatened and now they fear the possibility of fighting minorities on equal grounds.

2009 May 28
robert permalink

Leon, you’re incorrect. our current laws do not come from our justices. they interpret the laws that our appointed representatives (congress / The Presidency) propose and enact. Therefore, the men and women who sit on the supreme court merely uphold the laws that are in place, and occasionally they are allowed to make rulings on the legalities of new laws, but that is very rare.

Also, i think you overestimate the white majority’s fear of minorioties. To follow your logic fully, it is that white majority (since majority vote is what wins elections - other than presidential) who has voted into office our minority legislators. If there was truly a fear there, then that majority would not vote for minority leaders.

2009 May 28
jaehwan permalink

Robert,

I think Leon was talking about White male majorities in general, rather than just specific to the court (he mentioned racist institutions, and the Court doesn’t create institutions either.). Also I don’t think he said White people were afraid of minorities; he was just referencing the fact that a Latina’s views would more than likely be different from the White majority given her background.

I disagree with you on the idea that interpretation should be “cut and dry.” Politics are not supposed to play a role in the Court, but by all practical real life measures, they do. This is why some judges are thought to be liberal, while others are thought to be conservative. If you look at Scalia, for example, he almost always votes as George W. Bush would vote.

2009 May 28
jaehwan permalink

Thanks, Neil Townsend. Thanks for posting the larger transcript. Context is key!

Also, love your blog!

2009 May 28
robert permalink

Byron,

I can agree with some of what you’re saying - and certainly the bit about non-partiality. My reference is more toward a judges role vs. a perceived role as lawmaker s. law interpreter. It’s all moot in my opinion, as I mentioned above, I have zero problem with her appointment.

2009 May 28
robert permalink

also just to clarify my other comment re. fear, Leon mentioned:

“Gingrich’s accusations are just smokescreens to cover up for the fact that the white majority is seeing their advantage getting threatened and now they fear the possibility of fighting minorities on equal grounds.”

In my mind feeling threatened = fear no? fearing a possibility certainly = fear. Hence my addressing it in my response :)

2009 May 28
mT permalink

Unrelated to the topic(s), but why does Robert’s avatar face keep changing?

2009 May 28
jaehwan permalink

mT:

Haha…he’s logging in from different IPs. That’s why I highly recommend that people sign up at gravatar.com to break the dependence on randomly assigned pictures based on IP address. This way you can be “more than just a number.” You too can be an orange eye or a brown and white dog. :)

Robert,

Okay, I see what you’re saying. I think/hope that the majority isn’t standing behind Gingrich on this one.

2009 May 28
Leon permalink

I should have said that some white folks like Gingrich feel threatened. Certainly not all whites think the way he does. As for the rest about judges and their roles, thanks for the clarification.

2009 May 29
Larry permalink

The White Right must very insecure to accuse Sotomayor of being a racist because of her comment about offering the perspective of a “wise Latina.”

It’s a desperation move and contrived as hell.

Sotomayor’s point is that she is offering (shock, horror) a minority perspective than differs from that of the White majority which sadly dominates the US court system.

But, maybe this is exactly the real reason why some people are throwing such a hissy fit about her comments.

Unfortunately, there are increasing examples of White people trying to “play the (reverse) racism card” and accuse minorities of being “racist” no less–all in order maintain White dominance and power.

The backlash against Affirmative Action is the clearest example of this cynical political strategy, where White applicants to universities claim to be discriminated against because of “racial preferences” given to minorities.

Never mind that the entire educational system from K-12 and college is largely stacked against minorities like Blacks, Latinos, etc. to begin with.

2009 May 29
jaehwan permalink

By the way, David Brooks had an excellent article about empathy and judges here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29brooks.html?th&emc=th

2009 June 1
uRB4N permalink

Why is it always about race with you white people?!

Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS