Of course she wouldn't know that the majority of Americans are homeowners. She's from San Francisco, where retarded "progressive" politics have sunk homeownership below 40%. Pulled-face Pelosi is clueless again.

The better Pelosi quote is her equating the SCOTUS with god:

"And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision." Arguing that Congress has no business interfering with the ruling unless it wants to amend the Constitution, Mrs. Pelosi said: "This is almost as if God has spoken."

Not to pick a fight with the Census bureau, but I find it hard to believe that 70% of Americans own homes (once you take out kids, people in college and apartment dwellers), there must be some definition somewhere that excludes kids from the statistic.

"Not to pick a fight with the Census bureau, but I find it hard to believe that 70% of Americans own homes (once you take out kids, people in college and apartment dwellers), there must be some definition somewhere that excludes kids from the statistic."

I am 24 and many people I know my age live in a house. If you graduate from college with a good job and no debt, you can afford a house easily. If you are married even easier.

She's also putting herself on the side of mega-developers and against the poorest citizens (and neighborhoods) in the country. The people that Democrats "supposedly" champion.

I enjoyed the way she rabidly started to attack religion again, can't even help herself anymore. It's just reflex. Weathers hot, damn religion. Unemployment is an issue, stinking religious goons.

"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."

I think Pelosi exemplifies the Democrat's biggest problem. Their major mover and shakers don't stand for anything except opposing Bush and the Neo-Cons. Pelosi got alot of her power by her willingness to confront Bush when he seemed invincible (post 9-11). Now the DNP is paying for their cowardice (not willing to expend political capital to oppose a war-time incumbent) because the moderates (left/central) find themselves marginalized and unable to maintain message. Bush was eminently beatable in 2004 and, assuming the next Republican presidential candidate has any ties to the current administration, the 2008 candidate will likely be just as vulnerable. But if the Dems can't get a strong voice (party-wise) out of a sector besides SanFran and NY/NE, the US will be seeing another Republican president.

Well, didn't Vodkaboy call her the "real estate salesperson" or something after she and "the mortician" gave the dem response after the SOTU?

...So this is almost as if God has spoken....

One wonders if Pelosi would also defend the Dred Scott decision with an equivalent unquestioning eye.

Nice try, wingnuts. Democrats will clean your clock now that Bush approval is under 40%. Judgment day is coming.

Cain,

It doesn't matter how many websites you hop on to call folks wingnuts, it won't change the fact that the tooth fairy isn't real, the earth isn't flat, Hitler's not alive in Brazil, and Democrats aren't in any shape to clean the Republicans' collective clock right now if the Republican Party's approval was below 20%.

I agree with Cain. Bush has no chance in 2008.

rofl,
Good one Jim

It amazes me how folks today are conditioned to reflexively defer to any utterance of the Supreme Court, as the word of god.

The judiciary is but one of three EQUAL branches of government.

I wonder how she would have reacted to Andrew Jackson's response to the supreme court, when they declared his forced removal of the Cherokee's to Oklahoma (a very bad act, but I like his response anyway)unconstitutional.

"Justice. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Very Good point Tim. One wonders if Pelosi would still think a supreme decision the unchallengable word of God if they had a mind go ahead and reverse Roe v. Wade?

I would absolutely LOVE to see the backpeddling on that if it ever happened

My first thought when I heard of her "God has spoken" comment was what her opinion is of Papal infalibility.

Of course, the real problem is she can't understand that the Bill of Rights sets forth a set of minimum standards, and if Congress wants to grant citizens further protections, there is no Constitutional prohibition against doing that. And it does not "undermine" or defy the Supreme Court one whit.

Maybe she thinks this decision establishes a baseline of rights granted to local governments under the constitution that can't be violated.

As dumb statements, it really does belong up there with Patty Murray saying that people support Bin Laden because he builds hospitals and day care centers.

I can't believe that the citizens of CA elected that woman to Congress.

The OTHER citizens of CA, I might add, as nobody in my house would vote for her if she was the only candidate. And we don't live in the Bay Area anyway. But even if we did, sheesh. What a maroon.

TO: Will Collier
RE: Well...

...it's an interesting FIRST step.

However, the real solution is for the House to pass a bill of impeachment against the five justices who approved this egregious violation of our right to the pursuit of happiness.

And, as yet, I have not heard from my Republican party here in Pueblo County saying they disagree with the Kelo decision.

I'm waiting............

They have until the end of next week. Then I'm going to start kicking some elephant asses. As well as the usual ass' asses.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: ScienceTeacher
RE: Believe It

"I can't believe that the citizens of CA elected that woman to Congress." -- ScienceTeacher

You should encounter some of the Californians we've encountered here in Colorado. If they are representative of the general population of southern California, there is little surprise in their electing this person.

Case in point....

There was a popular billboard campaign in Denver a couple of years ago, touting some cheese from California.

One of the billboards read, "At least it doesn't drive like it's from California," or words to that affect.

A popular traffic-taunt in Denver now is, "Why don't you go back to California!"

Regards,

Chuck(le)

It sickens me to say it, but this is near to the position I took to defend the Court's decision to support Bush during the 2000 election. I was telling angry moonbats, "if you don't support the Court, then you're against the rule of law".

I do wonder what position, if any, Pelosi held then. And I do support legal measures to change the ruling, lessen its potential impact. I'm only noting that, for myself, this is one statement I'll refrain from expressing outrage on other than to express my conflict.

Gotta remember, no one Nancy Pelosi knows is going to have their homes confiscated under this ruling, so how bad can it be? I mean, really, is Dick Geffen's house going to be bulldozed for wetlands preservation or beach access? Is Streisand's beach estate going to be confiscated to build a resort complex?

Poor people don't own houses--they rent.

TO: urthshu
RE: The Law & the Court

"I was telling angry moonbats, "if you don't support the Court, then you're against the rule of law"" -- urthshu

There's a difference between the 2000 Presidential election decision and the Kelo decision.

The former was not judicial activism. The latter is.

Impeach the cretinous activist justicies....

...THAT's the 'rule of law' too.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

There are two basic civics problems in Ms. Pelosi's response:

1. She seems to believe that if something is Constitutional, it's mandatory. I always thought the expression "What's not forbidden is mandatory" was a joke.

2. In "upholding" the Separation of Powers, she destroys it. She's saying that the Supreme Court can take away the Legistative Branch's authority for funding.

How does someone who, apparently, doesn't have a clue how our government works get elected to it?

Shawn — You have an interesting definition of 'poor', I suspect. But someone owns the houses and apartments the poor rent, in your world, and if those properties full of poor people are producing enough revenue to suit a city councilman in the developers' pocket (here in LA, that's ALL of them, pretty much), those houses, those apartments and those residents are at risk.

I'm not normally in favor of federal laws that seek to control activities that should rightfully belong to the states, but in this instance I wouldn't mind a federal law banning such abuses of eminent domain. But why should it be limited to cases where federal funds are involved? After all, since practically everything affects "interstate commerce," a properly drafted law could put a stop to the entire sordid practice in the entire United States.

Tim that is correct,Nancy Pelosi is proof of a pretty young start up who now is an old bat.The Dems are paying for their stupidity by keeping folks like her in power,they should've let Harold Ford Jr. have the job in the first place.But no,they had to put a bugg eyed dim bulb in this position.And as you said I wonder what would have been her reaction to what President Jackson's remark concerning the Supreme Court.Yes, the act itself was bad but he was right.It also helped that "Old Hickory" was also a lawyer and a State Supreme Court Jutice,so he actually knew what the Constitution said and meant,too Bad she doesn't!I hope she gets some of the treatment that Justice Souter is getting for this rancid decision.

"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court..."

Considering the blithe alacrity with which Congress inflicts "unfunded mandates" on state, local, and municipal governments, the foregoing comment is beyond stupid.

She's not necessarily stupid, just bought and paid for.

At the risk of giving respect to lawyers, let it be known the Pelosi is not one....