Anonymous Liberal nails Newt.
Moreover, the only Sotomayor case that Gingrich actually cites in his piece–the Ricci case–flatly contradicts the entire thrust of his criticism. Gingrich tells the story of Frank Ricci, a sympathetic plaintiff who was denied a promotion because the test he scored well on was thrown out. In his discussion of the Ricci case, Gingrich makes no mention at all of any relevant precedent or case law. His sole purpose in relating the story is to elicit sympathy from the reader with respect to Ricci’s situation. The not-even-subtle point is that Sotomayor was insufficiently empathetic with respect to Ricci. The law itself is irrelevant to Gingrich’s point.
Gingrich ends his column–completely oblivious to any internal contradiction–by asking (purely rhetorically, of course) whether Sotomayor is “a radical liberal activist who will cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity?”
- MN
