Gingrich: I Shouldn't Have Called Sotomayor Racist, But She Still Is

Today, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a new column at Human Events on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. In the column, Gingrich writes that his public declaration that Sotomayor is a racist was "too strong and too direct" and that "the word 'racist' should not have been applied." However, media reports that Gingrich is taking back his previous claim aren't exactly true.

Marc Ambinder is on point with the headline, "Gingrich Explain-ogizes For 'Racist' Comment." It's pretty clear that Gingrich is only sorry for expressing his disdain for Judge Sotomayor in a way that didn't reflect well on him. Indeed, most of his column is dedicated to making the case that Sotomayor is, in fact, racist. 

Referring to a speech made by Sotomayor in 2001, Gingrich writes:

Here are some excerpts from the speech (emphasis mine):

• "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that."
• "Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
• "Justice 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 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."

The former Speaker would have you believe that Judge Sotomayor intends to make biased rulings. However, he intentionally ignores the part of her speech when she explained that, while she believes it is impossible for ANY judge to be wholly impartial, she always strives for "complete vigilance in checking [her] assumptions":

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

Gingrich goes on to cite Sotomayor's ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano to suggest that she will favor certain groups from the bench:

Ricci quit his second job and studied 13 hours a day in 2003 for a civil service exam he hoped would earn him a promotion to lieutenant in the New Haven Fire Department. ... He got one of the highest scores.  But because no African-Americans scored high enough on the exam to be promoted, the city of New Haven threw out the results of the test and promoted no one.

Frank Ricci, 16 other white firefighters, and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city, claiming they were denied promotions on the basis of their race.  A district judge dismissed the case, and a three- judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.  One of those judges was Judge Sotomayor.

But, as Media Matters Action Network has previously noted, the test itself could be considered a discriminatory hiring practice because it favored whites over minorities. Moreover, the decision in the case followed a binding precedent.

In her career, Judge Sotomayor has rejected over 80 percent of the discrimination cases she's heard. That's hardly evidence that she will, as Gingrich suggests, "cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity."