Courtesy of Ramesh Ponnuru at the National Review Online's The Corner, read the full exchange from Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's press conference today on the issue of the Supreme Court's recent eminent domain ruling, excerpted here (emphases added):
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.The only reasonable question a person could ask at this point is what the fuck? What the fuck is this woman talking about?
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.
Read the whole transcript at the link above. She isn't mishearing this reporter; she literally has no idea what he's referring to. Is that possible?
So what do you think of a Supreme Court that says it's okay for a local municipality to seize your home and land and sell it all to a private developer for the sake of increasing the local tax base?
Want the shock of the day? Go find out who voted how on that decision. And then tell me that it's conservatives who have a monopoly on Government meddling.
CORRECTION: I should not have written that local municipalities can "seize" one's home and land. Instead, they can now force you to sell it to them. In a homeowner's mind, this may, indeed, be a seizure, but my term was incorrect.