Friday, July 01, 2005

Pelosi wins a Pelosi!!!!

Just when you thought the Democratic leadership couldn't go any lower, Nancy Pelosi reveals just what an intellectual light-weight she really is. For her performance this week, I am forced to award yet another Pelosi Award. In this small exchange, Nancy shows why I chose to name the award after in the first place.

It all occurred at her weekly press conference. For those of you who don't know, the Supreme Court in Kelo, basically held that legislative bodies can exercise eminent domain to seize private land and transfer it to other private ownership, as long as it considers the transfer beneficial to the public good. It does, however, specifically leave those decisions to the legislature. All the court said was "hey, the legislature's actions in seizing the land doesn't violate the takings clause." Republican Senator Jon Cornyn, in order to prevent state and local legislatures from doing this, will introduce legislation that will restrict the use of federal funds for projects such as those involved in the Kelo case that simply trade one private owner for another.

One reporter decided to ask Pelosi what her thoughts on the proposed legislation was, as well as her thoughts on the Kelo case. In this short exchange, Pelosi revealed that she knew absolutely nothing about the decision, the proposed legislation, and the function of the federal government.

Q: Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi: As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision. (withhold funds from the court? What are you talking about? Do you have any idea what the legislation is-ed.)

Q: Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi: Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression. (What??!! How does the separation of church and state have ANYTHING to do with this? On top of this, withholding funds has nothing do to with enforcing any decision-ed.)

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.

Q: Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision. (Constitutional Amendment? No Nancy, the court didn't say the legislatures had a constitutional right to seize this land, only that the constitution didn't prevent them. At what's all this talk about deity? Weren't you just knocking the republicans a few seconds ago for failing to separate church and state?-ed.)

Q: Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi: The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.


Post a Comment

<< Home