LyfLines: Ignorance and power - not a good combination

Some things need to be seen to be believed. Like the press conference statements from Nancy Pelosi yesterday. The level of ignorance demonstrated is just staggering. Particularly when you consider that she represents the entire Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives. Just to focus on one section, a couple of questions dealing with the outrageous Kelo decision from the US Supreme court last week.

Reporter: 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.

So she didn't understand the question. OK. No one's suggesting withholding funds from the court. But let's give her a pass for a moment, because she just didn't understand the question.

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.

Staggering. If you actually understood the separation of powers, Rep. Pelosi, you'd understand that it is Congress that controls the purse-strings. The Supreme Court lacks constitutional authority to spend, or order spent, a single penny out of the public treasury

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

If the Congress wants to change the law to prevent public money from being spent on eminent domain claims under the Kelo doctrine of "public purpose" for "economic benefit", the Congress absolutely has the right to do so.

And the suggestion that it would be "nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court" to do so is just silly. The Supreme Court ruling still stands, the states can still do it - they just can't use federal grants.

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.

Through his emissary, Saint David Souter. God Help Us...

Representative Pelosi, the Supreme Court is made up of human beings, not the elect of heaven. They have, as you do, an obligation to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. Five of them decided that the Constitution allowed the City of New London to act that way - four thought it an egregious mistake. To say that it is "almost as if God has spoken" is offensive, ignorant and irresponsible. Did God speak through the Supreme Court in Dred Scott Ms. Pelosi?

It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Yes, they did. So now, as far as you're concerned, Congress gets to completely abdicate their responsibilities?

One of the keys to that "separation of powers" argument that you were talking about a minute ago, and which you clearly do not understand, is that the Constitution gives to the 3 branches of the federal government powers that are separate and equal, to create a system of checks and balances. The Constitution does not envision that the Supreme Court carries the imprimatur of the Supreme being - it envisions a Supreme Court that is checked by the legislature and executive if it overreaches. If you believe, as many do, that Kelo was wrongly decided, you have, not only the right, but the responsibility to do something about it.

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.

It's only been one of the most talked about issues in the country for most of the last two weeks, and she can't even make up her own mind as to whether or not it's a good decision?

It's a truly appalling performance, demonstrating ignorance of both current events and constitutional authority and responsibility.

(I guess that makes her an appropriate representative for the Democrats...)

Update:
More from