There is a politician, however, who should finally take heed of one of my favorite axioms..."‘Tis better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it." Well, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D - 8th Dist., CA), the house Democratic Leader, opened hers and absolutely nothing came out. Of substance, that is. She is a complete moron, plain and simple.
Recently, the Supreme Court issued its Kelo decision, which, as I understand it, allows legislative bodies to exercise eminent domain to seize private land for purchase by another private entity, as long as it considers the transfer beneficial to the public good. (HT - Captains Quarters) From what I gather, the ruling does nothing to impede those same legislative bodies from enacting laws to limit when eminent domain can be exercised above that very low standard. Sen. John Cornyn (R - Tex) has introduced legislation to do just that. Mrs. Pelosi was asked her opinion on the subject, and what follows his a tidal wave of ignorance and confusion. Below is a brief interaction between a reporter and the House Minority Leader during her weekly press conference. Notice how the reporter repeats the question because her first answer wasn't even close to on target. Notice Mrs. Pelosi continue to reissue it and then grab a shovel and start digging deeper.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Above and beyond the fact that Pelosi doesn't understand the SCOTUS decision, Cornyn's proposed legislation, or the English language, is the startling admission that she equates a ruling by the Supreme Court as unalterable as the word of God. This is about 5 seconds after she had just mentioned "separation of powers." It's like a praise chorus that just throws in churchy words, she just makes some vague allusion to the Constitution to remind everyone her job involves it...somehow...she thinks. More importantly, what does she think? Does she even realize that she, along with her fellow congressmen, has the power to overrule the Supreme Court? And that the Supreme Court can enforce nothing without the help of the other branches? Hello? Poli-Sci? Heard of it?
I must now go fume.