Posted on 05/28/2009 8:30:54 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
White House (CNSNews.com) - Critics of President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court should be careful how they conduct the debate, warned White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday, as he struggled to explain a 2001 comment by Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Obama nominated Sotomayor on Tuesday to fill the vacancy of retiring Associate Justice David Souter.
Among the controversies surrounding Sotomayor is a comment she made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law in October 2001.
In that speech, she said, “I would hope 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.”
Fielding questions for about 10 minutes on Sotomayor’s comment, Gibbs was at times dismissive.
“I think we can all move past YouTube snippets and half-sentences and actually look at her honest-to-God record,” he said at one point during the questioning.
Throughout the press conference, Gibbs continued to tell reporters to look at her record while being pressed to explain the comment. Gibbs finally said, “She has lived a different life than some people have based on her upbringing.”
Gibbs was first asked to respond to a blog-posting by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who wrote, “Imagine a judicial nominee said, ‘My experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.’ Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
Gibbs responded, “I think anyone involved in this debate should probably be exceedingly careful with the way they decide to describe different aspects of this.
“We’re satisfied that when the people of America and the people of the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker, they will come to the same conclusion as the president,” Gibbs said.
“When people get a chance to look at her record, partisan politics will take a backseat to common sense and open-minded decisions based on a full examination of the record,” he said.
The presidential spokesman continued that the statement must be viewed in context, and said reporters have not read the entire speech.
“Americans should read all of what she talked about, read a couple of sentences past that,” Gibbs said.
Several reporters immediately said they had done so. Gibbs expressed skepticism toward at least one reporter.
In that section of the speech, Sotomayor was speaking specifically about ethnicity. She also was speaking at a symposium entitled, “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”
“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,” she said, leading up to the more famous statement.
“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,” said Sotomayor. “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,” she added.
At that point, Sotomayor said: “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.”
She followed that up saying, “Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice 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,” Sotomayor said.
“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,” she added.
Hello? Any Republicans out there? Cheney proved that you CAN go after Obama and WIN. So let’s go....
So it is ok to be racist and sexist as long as you're not a white male?
By all means lets do. The Supreme Court rejected 60% of her opinions. That means her grade is a 40. That's an F.
PING!
The fact that she Spoke at Berkeley should be ground enough to disqualify her
Bueller...
She is a racist, her words and rulings prove that point. If no one wants to make it, then so be it.
But it changes nothing, she is a racist.
“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.”
***************
The only conclusions this woman seems to be capable of reaching are sonsistently wrong.
What a pathetic nominee. So our background determines the application of constitutional law?????
And Gibbs is a joke.
The chutzpah by this admin is amazing. Sotamayor is on record uttering a despicably racist remark and conservatives are WARNED they best move on or else!
This administration and the Dimwits in Congress are trying to RULE this country through FEAR.
Republicans best find their voice now before they lose the right to critique the actions of these socialist pigs.
” . . . actually look at her honest-to-God record” (Gibbs)
Does she have a record that is honest to God? Does Gibbs?
The statement is logically indefensible. But, of course, that won’t stop the anointed one and his band of thieves from intimidating anyone who questions his wisdom in selecting this activist pseudo-judge for appointment to the highest court in the land.
The body of her work of which we’ve been apprised clearly describes an activist approach, and a mindset that the Constitution should be interpreted as a living document, subject to the supposed changing times. Neither of those notions supports her appointment, IMO.
It remains to be seen whether the pubbies will find the stones to properly and vociferously challenge this unqualified nominee.
And when they overturn her opinion on the Conneticut firefighters case (hopefully) her grade will be even lower. I heard on fox that there is another of her cases out there that could land in the Supreme court in the next few months..maybe after she is seated. It was the gun law..that states did not have to right to regulate guns..only the feds?
"I abhor less or discount less"? "may and will make a difference"? That is liberal gibberish. Emotions driving actions, fake adherence to principles when there are none, just the whim of the day. Words obviously mean nothing to her so what about the words of the Constitution?
there can never be a universal definition of wise,” she added.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I thought she was a Catholic. Apparently she wasn’t listening in CCD classes.
THAT was dumber than the statement everyone’s talking about.
I mean REALLY dumb, as in unformed conscience dumb; as in a Catholic supporting abortion, euthanasia, universal (limited only to healthy genetics) health care dumb.
where were obama and his ilk when they were shredding justice Thomas? (rhetorical)
notice that they are already trying to frame any detractors of the “wise latina woman” by WARNING THEM OF CRITICISM
funny how if one criticizes based on the “wise latina woman’s” own words, the racism mud is thrown.
Uh... that's the problem... we HAVE been looking at her record... and it is lacking...
"....First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise...,”
....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.”
Well, I'll tell you what, Gordita, where to begin?
1. Who cares what Martha Minnow says, whoever she is?
2. If there isn't a universal definition of "wise", (actually most sane people could agree on one I'm sure)neither is there one of "richness" How dare you dismiss other people experience out of hand? Moreover, I don't concur that many of the illiterate, violent, ignorant, irresponsible people in inner city ghettoes have a "rich" experience that I need in my life. Try "pathetic" or "dysfunctional" Those in the ghettoes and barrios who live a decent life do so because their values are congruent with middle class people--so their similarities to the mainstream, not their "diversity" helps them.
3. So it's a "wise Latina woman" but just a "white male" ?(and no mention of wisdom for him). That terminology is no accident. This narcissistic halfwit can take her "rich" experiences and put 'em where the sun don't shine.
Lastly, just because some past Justice voted against your group doesn't mean they were wrong. You might not like it, but TS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.