RNC’s New Media Director Re-Tweets Claim That Sotomayor Is A Racist
Does Todd Herman, the director of new media for the Republican National Committee, agree that Sonia Sotomayor is a racist?
Herman just Re-Tweeted Newt Gingrich’s earlier Tweet claiming that Obama’s SCOTUS pick had indulged in “racism,” which is catching some flak from some media figures today. Click to enlarge:
Retweeting, of course, is generally taken as a sign of agreement. The original Gingrich Tweet that Herman Re-Tweeted was referring to Sotomayor’s much-discussed 2001 speech about how her race and gender shaped her judging. Gingrich said that “new racism” is “no better than old.”
For the RNC’s new media director to Re-Tweet Gingrich’s assertion seems at odds with Michael Steele’s claim that “our party right now will avoid partisan knee-jerk judgments.”
Update: The RNC is declining to say whether or not it agrees with Gingrich’s claims.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
I figured it wouldn’t take long for the RNCers to take the plunge. You know Limbaugh is already calling people out for saying attacking Sotomayor will be bad for the Republican party right?
.
What sucks for Republicans big time is that the most notable racists in their camp are the ones now saying Sotomayor is racist. Credibility Fail.
I wonder how a bunch of old white men calling the first hispanic SC Nom. a reverse racist will go over with the hispanic voting community.
GOP – Grand Ol’ Projectionists
Repubs still haven’t learned after the ‘08 election… they are sealing their fate with Hispanics right now. The bigots in their party have been the loudest ones on TV since Obama made his choice… THIS IS THE FACE OF THE GOP! THIS IS WHAT REPUBILCANS ARE ALL ABOUT!
P
And as a Democrat… I’m loving every minute of it…Popcorn anyone??
Still, they’re right….Regardless of “credibility” or “how their viewed” – those really nailed the premise. And, completely missed the point. But, I give you credit for diverting the conversation right off the bat.
so if any democrat makes a very obviously racist statement, no republican should ever call them out on it. Wow. But if a republican makes a racist statement, then every democrat is allowed to call them out on it.
as a latina democrat I find Sotomayor’s comment highly offensive, and somewhat racist.
This is the line of attack they’ve chosen to counter claims they are being racist. Now it’s just turned into a contest on who can yell the racism charge the loudest.
.
This is a great way to reign in some more Latino voters. I mean, when Latino’s all start being labeled as racists and criminal as the columnists begin to bring out the statistics on Hispanic crimes, as tends to happen when the rabid right gets into a frothy rage over race, a few of them will overstep the boundary’s and the major news orgs will pick up on it. Then the conversation will shift to how the Republican party is going into permanent minority since they ironically push away the minorities.
A white man can make a better supreme court justices than a hispanic woman. NOW WHO”S THE RACIST?
Sorry to have to do this whole meta response thing, but there is an absolutely 0% chance that the poster “latina” above is actually a “latina democrat”.
.
There is absolutely NWIH that an actual Latina would find what SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor said to be “racist” and/or “highly offensive”. None. Sometimes I actually wish the rightwing dead-enders had smarter trolls.
Anyone who does not admit who they are-their own race, how they were raised, where they were raised, effects ANY decision they make is being disengeniuos. I think Ms Sotomayors comments are refreshing and honest. It makes me know she will judge based on her own principals. Just as I know Gingrich would make decisions based on the fact that he is a small minded pig of a man! Let him and those like him, Rove, Cheney, Rush continue their right of free speech. It will alienate their party further until those R’s with a soul-and there are some of them out there, squash the power that has been defacto handed over to them.
While the Republicans are going through all their silliness in trying to grasp at anything to discredit Sotomayor, for the last two days I’ve just been feeling very happy that it’s become so normal to see highly qualified people from both genders and every background so thoroughly integrated into the leadership of the country. It didn’t start with Obama, though it’s accelerated under him to feeling entirely natural. I love this.
So saying that your experiences as a Latina woman will make you a better judge than a White Male, soley on the basis of your race and background, is not somewhat racist? Not to mention that POTUS’ requirements of “empathy” break the Oath that the SCOTUS justices must take. Below is the oath they must take. Please can someone explain how her views and Obama’s requirements do not break this oath…
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice WITHOUT RESPECT TO PERSONS, and do EQUAL RIGHT to the POOR and to the RICH, and that I will faithfully and IMPARTIALLY discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
how does this comment not break the above oath…”I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
And the Democrats didn’t care about “alienating” the hispanic voters when they tried to block Sam Alito’s appointment, or the Black vote when they tried to deny Clarence Thomas. They certainly didn’t mind playing the card then.
also, for all of you who are saying it’s “refreshing” to know that she is admitting she is biased etc etc…Judges make rulings about THE CONSTITUTION.. that is it. They only answer to THE CONSTITUTION, they do not set policy, and they do not rule based on experiences or personal pasts.
Thank you Allen for shedding the dishonest pseudonym of “Latina” in your previous post and posting under your real name. Your post is still obvious nonsense and drivel, but at least you’re being honest about your name this time.
Sorry Allen,
but blacks are not high supportes of Clarence Thomas. The only black conservative that we have an actual affection for is Colin Powell, and look at how the GOP is treting him.
I love it when non-black/non-minority people tells us what we should consider racist, particularly since we are 9 times outa 10 the ones who are being discriminated against.
To Allen the uninformed Limbaugh regurgitating oppressed white male:
.
(1) Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is of Italian descent, not Latino, and
.
(2) 10 Democrats, including 8 from the south, voted to confirm Thomas in a 52-48 vote, so without southern Dems being afraid of race politics Thomas the clown would never have gotten a seat on SCOTUS.
@allen re They only answer to THE CONSTITUTION, they do not set policy, and they do not rule based on experiences or personal pasts.
Sorry to disabuse you of your narrow view of what a judge or a specific Supreme Court Justice does, but they are no different from you or me. Their past is their prologue. After all, their job description doesn’t require them to disavow the secular pleasurable life, does it? Else, how could Justice Scalia go hunting with Cheney!!
Allen, buddy, we put people on the Court, not robots. Of course who they are as people will inform how they understand an issue. It happens with every judge and justice, which is why diversity is a good thing. It doesn’t mean they don’t apply the law judiciously and constitutionally. It just means they all bring real world experiences of how the law affects different people and entities. And laws are the things that let us live together in functioning societies, right?
Those of you who think that one’s background and personal experiences does not in some very small way enter into decision-making is just clearly in denial. Even interpretation of the Constitution is in some ways affected by one’s views. People are human–not robots. No decision is ever made in a vacuum void of human influence.
This entire “who’s a racist” issue is a red herring, by both sides. A better question: would supporters of Sotomayor still support her if she were a member of a different demographic? (i.e. a white male?) I highly doubt it. Her professional pedigree is basically the same as most Supreme Court nominees (Ivy league degrees, Circuit Court judge, etc.), but her record on the bench is downright mediocre. She’s had multiple decisions overturned by higher courts, with her faulty legal reasoning explicitly singled out (and another decision that will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court later this year). And her intelligence has literally been questioned by both colleagues and former employees. She’s basically another Clarence Thomas — a second-tier jurist who has been chosen for the purpose of political symbolism rather than to fill the core needs of the nation’s highest court. Nobody who truly values equality, with its inherent focus on individual merit, should support such a choice.
Rob — Sources please for her “multiple decisions” that have been overturned.
Rob — Names please of colleagues and former employes that have questioned her intelligence (2nd in her class at Princeton; Yale law review editor, etc.)
Pearson
.
You know Rob isn’t going to respond right?
Except for that’s not at all what she said.
Hey, everyone, we know that Rob has at the very least read that TNR piece by Jeffrey Rosen.
But here’s the straight poop from Glenn Greenwald on the “multiple decisions overturned by the SC” of Sotomayor
UPDATE: The focus on the three instances in which Sotomayor’s rulings were reversed is equally inane. Reversals of that sort are a standard part of how the appellate justice system works and hardly means that a judge’s abilities should be called into question. Any judge who sits on the bench long enough will make erroneous rulings at times. Many times, the Supreme Court makes new law when reversing and other times it is the Supreme Court’s majority that errs.
But leave all that to the side: again, look at how Alito’s reversals were treated, even though there were more of them and involved weightier questions…..” Just go read it for yourself and get educated on Alito’s reversals as well as his “empathy” during his Congressional testimony.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Finally, as a female myself, I am enraged by these obvious attempts to attach inferior labels to Judge Sotomayor.
As Greenwald went on to say about Alito:
There are numerous other instances where Alito’s rulings were repudiated either by the Supreme Court or even his own Circuit. Judge for yourself if those were treated the same way as Sotomayor’s more limited and less meaningful instances of reversals. Was the argument made that this proved Alito was inept, intellectually deficient, and chosen soley for “identity politics” in order to attract the key Italian and Catholic voting blocs?
O.K. Can someone find the three overturned cases out of the 7 or so she had ruled on and went onto the SCOTUS and tell me if they were a majority overruling them or if they were split decisions. I suppose if the three were unanimously overruled then maybe there would be a point to argue. But, if the three were split decisions then I would say its safe to say she has good judgment.
typical racist gop. how loveley.
Considering that 77% of SCOTUS cases reverse lower court decisions, the fact that Sotomayor was only reversed on 3/7 (or 3/6) means that she is doing quite well indeed, better than Alito did for example…
To Allen, Jefferson Smith, and Latina,
I hope you’ll consider the fact that the quote, has not been put into context– at least I’ve never seen it in context as to when and under what circumstances Judge Sotomayor made that statement. If anyone has, please let me know– I’ve had a busy few days and could very easily have missed it.
.
What she’s saying, I believe, is that her life experiences give her a unique viewpoint. That’s a valid comment; your life experiences go into making you the person YOU are. I am the mother of a 22-year old young lady who is mentally retarded. Her experiences, and mine in fighting for her rights when she was in the special-ed system, made me a much more empathetic person. If both my children had been “normal,” I’ve no doubt my life and my outlook on life would be considerably different.
.
The quote may simply have been badly phrased. Which of us has NEVER said something that he or she wouldn’t have loved to retract or rephrase?
.
It’s simply impossible for any human being to completely remove his or her preconceived ideas when it comes to judging any issue. That’s true for Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, as well. All one can do is try to be as objective as possible. The reports I’ve seen say that Judge Sotomayor does judge fairly and objectively– whether you would like a given conclusion or not is a different matter. From what I’ve seen, I would not believe that is true of the three sitting SCOTUS judges I just referred to.
.
Please think about it.
Sorry for the delay, Pearson. This site literally didn’t allow me to post a comment any sooner.
Here’s one of many articles that discuss her career and cases (a Google search yields hundreds of them) – this one is from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html). Most glaring are the unanimous and super-majority (beyond 5-4 Right/Left decisions) reversals and the case in which her decision was upheld, but her reasoning was explicitly faulted. According to several news sites, her rate of reversal is a rather large 60%.
Thanks for the link on the rulings. What’s interesting in those that voted in her favor on some of the rulings that were overturned came from both the Conservative and the Liberal side of the bench.
Sotomayor is not the first minority Justice to grow up poor – I’d say that Thomas (and others) beat her to the punch on that one. And I would wager that those defending Sotomayor’s empathies here, on the basis of her race and poor upbringing, would be the first to claim that Thomas lacks any empathy at all for minorites or the poor, his background notwithstanding. Growing up poor or being a member of a racial minority is not gonna make a wise jurist any better or come to a different conclusion than a wise, wealthy, white jurist – which is what I believe Sotomayor implies.
We all want, I hope, an intellect who is going to interpret the law wisely – regardless of upbringing, religion, or race. I’m willing to give Sotomayor the benfit of the doubt, and she will be easily confirmed, but I feel that this is not a great choice by Obama. I have not yet seen any evidence that she is anything but an average appeals court justice with a compelling life story but without a compelling judicial record. I wish that he had set his sights higher, even as a conservative. It does not seem to me that she will have the ability to move this court in any particular direction, or break any new legal ground, or sway any conservative minds. She’ll be a reliable liberal vote and nothing more – what’s the point? The court, from a liberal perspective, needs a leader. I don’t think this choice is it.
Here’s an article from the New Republic (which leans Left) that raises questions about her legal intellect (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085). The reviews are definitely mixed, rather than stellar.
BTW…it’s not inherently “racist” to question the suitability of a Latina potential justice (although some people are certainly being racist in their arguments). It’s inherently moronic not to question the qualifications and record of any Supreme Court nominee. Sotomayor’s innate physical characteristics shouldn’t even be part of this debate. It’s the utterly irrational “we need to choose a person of a specific race/gender in the name of equality” mentality which put them there. If those making such appointments actually viewed people equally, they wouldn’t feel a need to put an emphasis on a nominee’s demographics.
Dori, here’s some context from Dahlia Lithwick: http://www.slate.com/id/2219038/
sbj – You cite Thomas’ upbringing and race. Thomas and Sotomayer are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of empathy simply because Thomas has forgotten is roots–not Sotomayor. Does it make the person a better or wiser jurist, not necessarily. But it certainly can be a plus. Interpreting the law “wisely” is subjective–depending on your perspective. And if you think that one’s “upbringing, religion, or race” doesn’t in some way–to a lesser or greater degree–affect how one interpret’s the law. then you are being extremely naive.
@Rob re :Here’s an article from the New Republic (which leans Left) that raises questions about her legal intellect…..
Just so you know, Rob, the New Republic is not viewed as a reliably left leaning publication. In fact, it is mostly reviled by true lefters, particularly since its buy-in and promotion of the invasion of Iraq.
Rosen’s article was blasted from the get go and its reliance on anonymous sources was particuarly reviled. Here is Digby on that piece of work:
“Hunt (Al) is a villager of the highest order and his robotic drivel is the result of that nasty little gossip piece by Jeffrey Rosen in EventhelibrulNewRepublic. It is hard to over emphasize the damage that article did to Sotomayor’s reputation; it’s pretty clear that among the villagers she will always be seen as an undeserving affirmative action hire. And let’s not pretend that the complaints about Sotomayor for being a “bully” and a “hothead” and dumb as a post don’t have their roots in the usual places. A person with her exact professional background and reputation named Steven Myers would not be seen this way.
So much for your reliance on that egregious piece of anonymous character assassination.
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Here is a pre-eminent conservative, Rod Dreher, who actually reading the entire 2001 speech by Sotomayor and recognizes that he (and by implication, all of the clowns in the Gingrich Limbaugh party) was 100% wrong. Shocking that taking 1 sentence out of context might not actually reflect the intent of the speaker, I know. Here is today’s piece from arch conservative Rod Dreher, titled, “I was wrong about Sotomayor speech.”:
.
Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it’s unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet — and this is a key point — she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn’t seem to me to be a controversial point, and I am relieved by this passage:
“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.”
Relieved, because it strikes me as both idealistic and realistic. I am sure Sotomayor and I have very different views on the justice, or injustice, of affirmative action, and I’m quite sure that I won’t much care for her rulings as a SCOTUS justice on issues that I care about. But seeing her controversial comment in its larger context makes it look a lot less provocative and troubling.
@Pearson: “Does it make the person a better or wiser jurist, not necessarily. But it certainly can be a plus.”
So what is it that can be a “plus?” Being a racial minority? Growing up poor? So being a rich white man is, in effect, a minus?
And you know that Sotomayor has not forgotten her roots . . . how? Because you see it in her rulings? Are you saying that her rulings favor particular groups?
The Republican Party has already lost many mainstream Republicans and lost many Hispanic voters since Bush was first elected. It looks to me like the Republican Party just wants to complete the complete isolation from Hispanics and women – and somehow they think that this “strategy” will win elections anywhere outside of the deep south and a few states in and around Utah.
I don’t think there is any faster way to alienate women and hispanics than saying that Sotomayor lacks adequate intelligence for the supreme court (based on a few anonymous sources who were obviously trying to derail her nomination for an unexplained reason), she is “difficult to get along with” (a typical description of women in power) or she’s a racist (that one has already been overused by the Republicans on another woman of minority–Michelle Obama). I would say the Republicans are already well on their way to offending a lot of people, including myself. Just keep digging that hole deeper GOP!
Allen | May 27th, 2009 at 02:39 pm
So saying that your experiences as a Latina woman will make you a better judge than a White Male, soley on the basis of your race and background, is not somewhat racist? Not to mention that POTUS’ requirements of “empathy” break the Oath that the SCOTUS justices must take. Below is the oath they must take.
————————————————————————–
“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook, it is also about how are laws effect the daily realities of peoples lives…. I view that quality of EMPATHY of understanding and identifying with peoples’ hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.” – George H.W. Bush on Clarence Thomas
“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.” ————Samuel Alito
By definition empathy is understanding another person’s feelings and therefore what motivates them. Judges must obviously be able to understand what motivates behavior in order to make appropriate decisions. Motive is part of investigative and evidentiary pursuit in criminal cases. Having empathy in no way means a judge is going to sympathize in a case to purposely make a decision outside the law.
Better trolls please. Can haz Reeding Komprenshun??
Be serious folks. There is no Democrat who is a racial minority, who the whitewingers haven’t called a racist.
When is Scalia going to resign because he is a member of Opus Dei?