Newt Gingrich

[Print]  [Email]        

More questions for Robert Gibbs

By: Newt Gingrich
Examiner Columnist
June 5, 2009

When asked about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's statement that a "wise Latina woman" makes a better judge than a white man, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded, "I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor."

President Barack Obama took it a step further. He said he was "sure" Judge Sotomayor "would have restated it" if she had the chance to one again opine on race, gender and the law. And with that, it was official: The White House's first -- and so far only -- line of defense against critics of Sotomayor's controversial statement is that it was a one-time thing; an errant departure into radical identity politics by a mainstream jurist committed to strict race and gender neutrality.

Or was it? Gibbs' and the president's assurances that Judge Sotomayor "misspoke" when she asserted the innate inferiority of one race and one gender on the bench haven't put the controversy over her nomination to rest.

The rushed, perfunctory schedule of hearings Democrats had planned for the nomination is looking like it will be less and less rushed and less and less perfunctory. Even Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., are calling Sotomayor's remark "troubling."

Never one to be credulous when it comes to official presidential statements, the White House press corps is eager, no doubt, to dig further. In that spirit, here are some additional questions for Gibbs regarding the "poor word choice" of Judge Sotomayor:

»  "You described Judge Sotomayor's 'wise Latina woman' statement in a 2001 speech as a 'poor word choice.' How do you do you explain this additional statement from her speech: 'Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.' Was this also a poor word choice? And if so, which word?"

»  "Democrats, including Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., are circulating a 1994 speech by Judge Sotomayor in which she says this: 'Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that 'a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases' É I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. É I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.' "

Democrats claim that this 1994 statement by Sotomayor, from before she was confirmed by the Senate as a federal judge, proves that her views on race, gender and the law are uncontroversial. But doesn't the fact that she made virtually the same statement in two speeches seven years apart prove she wasn't simply exercising "poor word choice" in 2001? Doesn't it prove that the president was wrong when he said he was 'sure she would have restated it' if given the chance?"

»  "In announcing Judge Sotomayor's nomination, President Obama mentioned that one of the qualities he looked for in a nominee was 'a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law.' In a 1996 article for the Suffolk University Law Review, Judge Sotomayor advocates a different view of the judiciary. She describes the legal system as an agent of 'radical change' and the law as 'indefinite,' 'uncertain,' and 'unpredictable.' Given the president's stated criterion for his Supreme Court nominee, do you believe that Judge Sotomayor also 'misspoke' in her 1996 law review article?"

»  "President Obama has said repeatedly that 'words matter.' In 2008, Judge Sotomayor upheld a decision by the city of New Haven, Conn., to deny a promotion to firefighter Frank Ricci because of his race. Because no African-American firefighters had scored high enough on a qualifying exam to receive promotions, the city threw out the results of the test and promoted no one. Would the American people be mistaken in viewing this ruling, in light of Judge Sotomayor's repeated statements on race and gender and the law, as vindication of the president's view? Do Judge Sotomayor's words matter? Did they matter to Frank Ricci?"

All good questions. Let's hope they get asked -- and answered -- before the summer is out.

 

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has published 19 books, including 10 fiction and nonfiction best-sellers. He is the founder of the Center for Health Transformation and chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future. For more information, see newt.org. His exclusive column for The Examiner appears Fridays.




To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Mel

Jun 4, 2009

test comment

 

Scarcely About Santomayor

Jun 5, 2009

The firefighter exam made me think of the poll taxes and literacy tests that were in place during Reconstruction. The logic behind those measures isn't the same, but the a familiar argument could have been used to support them: Many registered voters worked hard to pay that poll tax, or pass the literacy test. Why get rid of them? Well, just because a law is in place and people work hard to follow the letter of the law, doesn't mean the law is fair.

 

PK

Jun 5, 2009

The test for the New Haven fire fighters was nothing like a poll tax - the test was developed and approved as being 'color blind'. This liberal spin on the Ricci case is simply an absurd, typical response from the left. To Sotomayor - if she follows the long tradition of Puerto Rican Catholics in being pro-life, what will the liberals do since they have already warned the 'right' regarding harsh treatment of her??

 

Rich

Jun 5, 2009

I've also read that Ricci is dyslexic and went to extreme measures, even having someone read and record the study material to help him comprehend it. It was effective, as he placed high enough to qualify for the promotion. If someone with a learning disability can study for and pass a test, what was stopping the other candidates from doing just as well? This case is horrible - talk about lowering the bar. Let's hope it never gets applied to healthcare...oh, wait, that's on tap for this administration too!

 

Glenn Jenkinson

Jun 5, 2009

If the test had been used extensively in the past, that means it is deemed a valid test. So even if zero, none, of those tested passed the test, there is no logical reason to throw out the test results. The decision was not logical. Illogical decisions I have seen are almost always driven by political agendas. Plus, should an illogical person preside over YOUR case? No thanks.

 

megapotamus

Jun 6, 2009

Not a big Newt fan generally but at least he has the stones to call this crap what it is. This new civil rights crowd is determined to make all the things the old-time segregationists warned of a reality. Wasn't it "equal rights" MLK et al wanted? But now there is legal, tax funded discrimination against white people in all institutions from academe to the DMV. And, surprise! it is only getting worse. This travesty of a judge is an object lesson, to those who are teachable, of the true costs of Affirmative Action.

 

Geo2388

Jun 6, 2009

It's sad that this president has repeatedly selected people for his cabinet and now the judiciary that have more baggage than the norm. The travesty is the members of Congress that agree with the President and want nothing more than push these substandard people through their approval process as quickly as possible; ignoring the trail of trash that follows them as these candidates are whisked into their positions. It's time to stop the "rubber stamping" and take a good look at these candidates. Especially for the highest court in this country! The country won't fall apart if we take some time to look a little closer and take some time to think about this before we make another decision

 

Tad

Jun 6, 2009

Imagine if Frank Ricci were black, and the New Haven fire department thre out the scores of 15 black fire fighters because no "white" applicantas passed. There would be a media fire store the likes we have never seen. But hey, it's a bunch of white men, so it's ok to discriminate against them.

 

concerned

Jun 8, 2009

I am deeply concerned over the possible appointment to the supreme court of judge Sotomayor. A contact to my two senators is in order for me.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Your Name:

Comment:




Local

Another snowball fight planned for Dupont Circle

The Official Dupont Circle Snowball Fight facebook fanpage has over 6,000 fans now, and it looks as if snowed in DC'ers will return for another battle. Full story

Politics

GOP winning war over Miranda rights for terrorists

Even as the administration defends its decision to grant accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, the president himself is hinting that things might be done differently in the future. Full story

Local

D.C. region braces for up to 20 more inches of snow

The National Weather Service has the entire D.C. metro area, from Prince William County north, under a winter storm warning for 10 to 20 inches of snow. Forecasters have had their eyes on this storm for days, but the projected snow totals were bumped up late Monday. Full story