Wow, just how ignorant is Nancy Pelosi? The Corner highlighted this exchange from her press conference today. She was asked about proposals in response to the Kelo eminent domain decision to pass a federal law to ban eminent domain takings on federal property for private benefit and to ban federal money for state and local takings for private benefit.
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.
Where to start?
The Supreme Court in the majority decision even encouraged states to pass laws that protected private property from such takings. The federal government has the right to pass such laws. It would not be nullifying the decision. It is not that the Court said that takings for private benefit were a Constitutional right; it was just that the 5th Amendment didn't forbid it. There is a big difference. Think about another example. There is no federal shield law for journalists. That is why the Supreme Court didn't hear the case of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. If the Congress now decided to pass a federal shield law, would Nancy Pelosi then say that that was an inappropriate flouting of a Supreme Court decision? Of course not.
Or here's another example that comes from her own blessed state. After the medical marijuana case in which the Court (God) said that states could not violate the Controlled Substances Act by allowing medical marijuana, what if Congress passed a law to change the CSA and allow medical marijuana. That would be an almost comparable example of the Congress passing a law to change the impact of a Court ruling. Would Nancy again think this was lese majeste? Of course not.
Also, the federal government has all sorts of mandates that they attach to federal grants. Think equal employment provisions and environmental regulations. They can even require states to raise their drinking age for minors to get federal transportation money. So, there is nothing strange about them tacking on yet another requirement for federal grants for federal community development block grants to keep that money from being used in any local project that involves taking private property to benefit a private entity. I guess the mandates that expand federal power are correct in her eyes, just not the ones that limit it.
Then, there is Nancy Pelosi's touching support for the finality Supreme Court decisions. Hmmm, did she feel the same for Bush v. Gore?
So, she feels that once the Supreme Court (or God?) has spoken it is now appropriate for everyone just to salute and accept it. If someone had proposed a federal law banning segregation in federal facilities after Plessy v. Ferguson, would Pelosi have thought that that was a wrong move and a violation of the Supreme Court's (or God's?) endorsement of separate but equal? Or would she just have recommended genuflecting before the collective wisdom of the 1896 Court?
And the poor boo seems a bit confusesd between the difference between church and state and that between the legislative and judicial branches. I wonder which branch she regards as as "church." She twice conflates the two types of separation. Once is a mispeak, twice is a Freudian slip. I guess it's because so many liberals have become dependent on the Court to "legislate" issues for them.
Of course, if she wants to rally Democrats to oppose a federal law protecting the property rights of the individual against the combined power of governments and businesses, let her go ahead. I'm sure that will be an appealing argument to the American people.
She truly is an idiot. I don't like to speak so strongly against an elected official, (ed. Yah, sure.) but the woman leaves me no choice. Neither Pelosi nor I have law degrees, but that is no excuse for her. She should be a mite bit more familiar with the history of the institution in which she works.
UPDATE: The Washington Post today covers the vote on an amendment to an Appropriations bill to limit the effect of the Kelo decision. 39 Democrats, including members of the Black Caucus worried about how eminent domain disproportionately affects poor people, voted for it. Apparently, they didn't buy Nancy Pelosi's concern about flouting what God, er, the Supreme Court said.
The Post also ties this vote to judicial nominations. Expect future nominees to be grilled about this issue. Perhaps, some Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee would like to channel Pelosi's interpretation. Nah, the GOP can't be lucky enough for more than one Democratic leader to spout such nonsense, can they?
I note that the Washington Post does not include her God quote. Why not? That is surely of interest and notable. And notice how they clean up this quote. Here is what she actually said
This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well.
and here is what the Post printed.
"This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution."
Mighty nice of them to clean up her ramblings and help her to not look as complete the fool as the actual quote did, isn't it?
UPDATE II: Keep checking out The Corner; they're having such fun with Pelosi. Debate seems to center on whether she's just dumb or simply unprincipled.
I like this e-mail to The Corner.
From a reader:
"It is a decision of the Supreme Court....So this is almost as if God has spoken." yeah....and then it was almost as if He then said "Get my Ten Commandments out of there!!"
UPDATE III: Arguing with Signposts has some other examples of how the Supreme Court has approved Congress withholding funds to local governments for purposes it doesn't agree with. AWS has a small tutorial for Representative Pelosi for the next time she deigns to open her mouth again. Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link and for linking to my post.) posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:54 AM
