My god, Nancy Pelosi is a fucking moron. Check her sophisticated understanding of the Supreme Court and eminent domain law:
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.
This is the House Minority Leader, and may she ever remain so.
This really does make me want to throttle her, which I assume she’d be in full sway for if the Supreme Court sanctioned the rope…
It would have to be made by union labor as well, probably.
I know that the bulbs in the House aren’t the brightest. but the Ds have to be able to find a better leader than Pelosi. I’ve been a D most of my life and she is just embarrassing. I can remain a D, however, because she really isn’t as embarrassing as Hastert and Delay. Small comfort.
That’s a pretty close contest, at least where the inoffensive Hastert is concerned. Of course, DeLay would make Attila the Hun look like a moderate by comparison.
This Pelosi-Boxer-Feinstein thing is the iron triangle of compassion. As nutty as they sound, they actually parrot the insane views of a huge number of Ds in CA.
When I lived in CA I was amazed at how many non-Dems liked Boxer; there must be something in the water that makes people like obnoxious women down there.