I wouldn't worry. Even if he has "an issue", Gingrich is still going to be Gingrich, and the man is an opposition researcher's dream. He is also seen as utterly repellent by more Americans than see him as appealing or agreeable.

Gingrich as Obama's opponent in 2012 means a massive margin for re-election. He will turn out to be the McGovern or Mondale of the Republican Party.

You are a ditto-head, who has taken an out of context quote, acquired second-hand, and reformatted it. Are you proud to be a tool? Are you incapable of even looking for the original speech, and looking at the context?

The speech was given by Sotomayor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law's annual Honorable Mario G. Olmos Law & Cultural Diversity Memorial Lecture in 2001.

In the part of the speech where the quote you distorted came from, Sotomayor was referencing positions/opinions expressed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum at a conference that was occurring the same time as this speech. Here's some context supplied with the quote, taken from a transcript of the speech, recently published by The New York Times:

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

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. 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 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. 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.

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. 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.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. 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.

Of course, anytime that Newt whines about reverse discrimination, it would be wise to remember that Gingrich was leading the charge to impeach a president for lying about an act of consensual fellatio in deposition given in a civil suit so frivolous, it was tossed summary judgment; while at the very same time was engaging in adulterous fornication with a woman who was also a paid member of his Congressional staff. How's that for reverse discrimination.

How does it feel to be a Newt polliwog?

ValuedCitizen, I put down what she said exactly (right above the bold) and how a critic would interpret it, again using her words only.

It's this "better" thing thing that is so troubling. The essence of what she said, unfortunately, is really clear. Maybe it's cause I'm trained as a lawyer (or are you too?), but you learn to ascribe meaning to the words. It's very damaging.

Her best hopes I think are that they don't have more of this stuff on her (but I worry that they may well, as she was a real activist in youth), or that people just don't care because they're so pumped up (like me) about Obama, or that she can talk her way through it. She's a tough talker, and she's not afraid of anybody or their questioning, which is great for her.

What if the Supreme Court for its 200+ years had been made up 99.9% of the time of Latina judges, and at long last a white male was being considered? (I know, boys and girls, this scenario requires your brain to really stretch!)

If we looked back into the candidate's past and found a quote something like this:

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

Whether you agree or disagree with the sentence, would you be right in labeling it "racist," or could you reasonably understand that it is just someone making the point that new perspectives are valuable in a deliberative body?

Anyway she's going to be confirmed. Give her a break - anyone here ever said anything really stoooopid?

Ain't gonna happen. I don't see enough elected officials backing Newt's campaign to get rid of Sotomayor, they actually have Hispanic constituents to answer to unlike Newt. And Newt is not just risking the Puerto Rican vote, it's the entire Hispanic community in this country, women and Independents.

Thanks for the full quote. I truly believe the media tries to limit what the audience thinks about but they can't tell us what to think.

A bruising judicial hearing is just what media wants. It may produce good television but makes lousy politics for the Republicans. Republicans are determined to self destruct. I say move out the way and let them have at it.

How anyone could make this kind
of post with that avatar, and garner
support, is completely beyond me.
It's the kind of thing I would
expect to see at FreeRepublic.