" WASHINGTON (CNN) – A week after sparking a political firestorm with a line on Twitter, Newt Gingrich is looking to cool the controversy in print.

Last week, the former House Speaker alluded to a line in a 2001 speech by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in which President Obama's Supreme Court pick said she hoped that a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Gingrich tweeted: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.' new racism is no better than old racism" and "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

The comments illuminated a strategy divide in GOP ranks over the Supreme Court fight, with high-profile faces like Gingrich and conservative host Rush Limbaugh highlighting what they called Sotomayor's racially divisive remarks, and leaders like National Republican Senatorial Committee John Cornyn urging the party to back away from that line of attack.

On Wednesday, Gingrich penned a lengthy op-ed in conservative Human Events that seemed to back away from his initial reaction.

"Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor's now famous words: '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,'" he wrote.

"My initial reaction was strong and direct — perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court have been critical of my word choice."

More at: CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Gingrich: I shouldn’t have called Sotomayor ‘racist’ « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/03/gingrich-i-shouldnt-have-called-sotomayor-racist/)

Newt says something reactionary.

Blah blah blah.

Newt apologizes.

What's wrong with this picture? I'm trying to recall a recent Democrat leader who has anything of the sort. I'm trying to recall if the teabagger comments ever produced an apology, but I'm sure the racist accusations weren't.

Newt says something reactionary.

Blah blah blah.

Newt apologizes.

What's wrong with this picture? I'm trying to recall a recent Democrat leader who has anything of the sort. I'm trying to recall if the teabagger comments ever produced an apology, but I'm sure the racist accusations weren't.It's actually good that he did. There's no specific evidence that she is a racist that I can find. Merely that she espouses a racist idea when asked. Those can be two different things.

And, it helps demonstrate that the right is willing to admit when it's gone too far. The left, as you point out, is incapable of this.

It's actually good that he did. There's no specific evidence that she is a racist that I can find. Merely that she espouses a racist idea when asked. Those can be two different things.

And, it helps demonstrate that the right is willing to admit when it's gone too far. The left, as you point out, is incapable of this.

I don't think she is either. In fact, to me the objectionable thing in her remark is not the "racist" part, but the fact that life experience and background would lead you to a better conclusion. I'm not an expert on the law, but I do understand that fundamentally, a good jurist who wishes to rule on existing law will consider the facts and is going to reach the same conclusion no matter what their "background" and "life story" has enriched their wisdom.

While I am sure that having a female, or black, or Italian, or Latino justice encourages the public that the court is fair, the decisions they render should have absolutely zero connection to how they were brought up. Justice is supposed to be blind. It's not "racist" to suggest that a white man can't render a just decision in a matter he hasn't personally experienced - it's insulting. You don't need "diversity" to interpret the law fairly, because if you do, the law doesn't mean anything at all.

I don't think she is either. In fact, to me the objectionable thing in her remark is not the "racist" part, but the fact that life experience and background would lead you to a better conclusion. I'm not an expert on the law, but I do understand that fundamentally, a good jurist who wishes to rule on existing law will consider the facts and is going to reach the same conclusion no matter what their "background" and "life story" has enriched their wisdom.

While I am sure that having a female, or black, or Italian, or Latino justice encourages the public that the court is fair, the decisions they render should have absolutely zero connection to how they were brought up. Justice is supposed to be blind. It's not "racist" to suggest that a white man can't render a just decision in a matter he hasn't personally experienced - it's insulting. You don't need "diversity" to interpret the law fairly, because if you do, the law doesn't mean anything at all.You're saying in a slightly different way exactly how I feel. She said she would reach a "better" decision, which states a "different" decision, than someone else. That in and of itself is bad judging, for the very reasons you state.

But, she didn't just say "different" than "people with a different background". She specifically said that her latina background and female background would make it better than a person who is white and male. That takes the statement from just being a bad judge to implying a superiority of race and gender. To me, that makes the statement (not necessarily the person, but certainly the statement) racist and sexist.

Had she said "I certainly think that a person who has been a victim of discrimination, who has lead a life of poverty, could empathize more completely with a person involved in a legal matter than someone who has not had that life experience" then she would have made no statement that implies a gender or race superiority nor did it even say she would come to a different conclusion due to her experience (which is virtually the exact concept Alito was getting to in his statement).

But, she didn't. She made three statements with her quote:

A latina will make a better decision based on being latina than a white will make
A woman will make a better decision than a man based on gender
A judge can have a different legal interpretation of the law based on their emotional attachment to the parties involved, and that's not only okay, it's preferred
I disagree with Ms. Sotomayor on all three points.

Dont you just hate it when somebody says something they really mean and then try to make excuses for having said it?

Stand up and take it like a man Newt. You said it, You meant it. You were right. Be a Got dam man about it.

This jsut in; Sotomayor apologizes for making racist and sexist comments.





Just kidding!

I don't think she is either. In fact, to me the objectionable thing in her remark is not the "racist" part, but the fact that life experience and background would lead you to a better conclusion.

The issue here is one of simple fairness; as many have said, had a white male made comments that the richness of their background and experiences of being white and male and of European descent would make their decisions better than an Hispanic female/black woman/white woman/purple woman from Venus, he would be beset and attacked and have his career and competence attacked AND BE JUDGED UNFIT TO SERVE on the scotus.

It is up to the GOP to illustrate this and drive the point home that the left has, for far too long, been using this type of argument to destroy their opponents and to do so unfairly and that is is up to the left to STOP trivializing race and gender for sheer partisan gain.

The concept of being judged by the content of ones character and not the color of ones skin has been destroyed by the left in this country bent on getting their way by any means necessary thereby putting at risk an individuals character, the very thing we want to emphasize.

Why is it when a Republican calls someone a racist, they have to apologize - but when a Democrat calls someone a racist, it's widely held that the person in question is indeed a racist?

I don't think she is either. In fact, to me the objectionable thing in her remark is not the "racist" part, but the fact that life experience and background would lead you to a better conclusion. I'm not an expert on the law, but I do understand that fundamentally, a good jurist who wishes to rule on existing law will consider the facts and is going to reach the same conclusion no matter what their "background" and "life story" has enriched their wisdom.

While I am sure that having a female, or black, or Italian, or Latino justice encourages the public that the court is fair, the decisions they render should have absolutely zero connection to how they were brought up. Justice is supposed to be blind. It's not "racist" to suggest that a white man can't render a just decision in a matter he hasn't personally experienced - it's insulting. You don't need "diversity" to interpret the law fairly, because if you do, the law doesn't mean anything at all.

The stark difference between conservatives and progressive liberals: Conservatives believe facts and truth according our constitution should rule the day. Liberals believe what looks and feels good should rule the day.

Why is it when a Republican calls someone a racist, they have to apologize - but when a Democrat calls someone a racist, it's widely held that the person in question is indeed a racist?
Because the dems are always right vrai. :smack:

yeah, I was just thinking before I read this post how that b#tch is the one who should apologizing for making the racist comments instead of Newt apologizing for calling her a racist.

Right, but calling people names and getting angry are useless in this debate. The point is that if we want open minds and tolerance and diversity then we accept Sotomayors opinion that she may make better decisions in SOME cases based on who and what she is and that's no big deal, we then judge her judgements on the merits. Did she make a good decision? A bad one? Mediocre?

And, AND, AND we ALSO accept Gingrich or Thomas or Scalia saying the EXACT same thing; Who and what I am enable me to make BETTER decisions in some cases on some subjects and THEN judge them accordingly.

The goal; We stop using our differences as weapons while demanding others do NOT.

It's fine to argue a woman may be better able to judge on a woman's issue as long as we are acknowledging that, some times, being a woman makes you biased on a womans issue and that may or may not be a good thing as to ones decision.

Content of character.