Pat Dollard | Young Americans

This is called choking at the 5 yard-line. Why would he back down from the position that had worked, put the enemy on the defensive, and gave us our only real shot at thwarting this woman’s confirmation. Coward.

The New York Times:

After several elected Republican officials publicly rebuked former Speaker Newt Gringrich and radio host Rush Limbaugh for calling Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “racist,” Mr. Gingrich seemed a little contrite in a lengthy e-mail message he wrote last week about the judge’s views. But he didn’t offer an apology or retreat too far.

“Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,’” Mr. Gingrich wrote. “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,” he wrote.

In his online newsletter, Mr. Gingrich now writes:

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.

So it is to her words — the ones quoted above and others — to which we should turn, for they show that the issue here is not racial identity politics. Sotomayor’s words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system — that everyone is equal before the law.

Mr. Gingrich then lays out some of her statements and opinions. Toward the end, he allows: “In fairness to the judge, many of her rulings as a court of appeals judge do not match the radicalism of her speeches and statements. She has shown more caution and moderation in her rulings than in her words. So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?”

As Mr. Gingrich’s acknowledgment that he’d gone too far rippled across the networks and reached the ears of leading senators now reviewing Judge Sotomayor’s body of work, at least one expressed some relief on Wednesday.

In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said: “I’m very glad he backed off. I think that’s unusual, that commentators do that, and I think it was very good that he did. I think that will help - help us. I think that will help us have a real good discussion about the serious issues that the nation faces and that the court faces. And there’s some disagreements about that.”

In interviews since he met with the judge on Tuesday, Senator Sessions has indicated that he and others want to explore the notion of “empathy” that President Obama cited as a trait needed in Supreme Court justices. Mr. Sessions asked in those interviews whether that empathy, or “feelings” would govern a judge’s decision rather than the rule of law.

In the CNN interview, Mr. Sessions, who had joined last week with other Republican leaders like Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and John Cornyn of Texas in trying to tamp down such incendiary criticisms, continued:

“I firmly believe that many judges on the Supreme Court feel too empowered to impose their personal views while they interpret statutes or constitutions and that’s where we ought to focus the debate. Will she be restrained? Will she simply follow the law and be neutral empire or will she be a judge that’s not committed to faithful interpretation of the law, will not subordinate herself to the law? A judge is subordinate to the law also. They must follow the law. They are not empowered to make it. Congress gets elected to make law.”

The judge continued meeting with other senators on Capitol Hill today.