Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (11870)	7/1/2005 10:37:28 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

PELOSI'S ENDORSEMENT OF THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS, ER, JUSTICES jim geraghty reporting TKS My morning began with attempted suicide bombers down the street a bit; my day continues with the revelation that the Minority Leader in the House has restored the divine right of kings, in the form of the Supreme Court. Christian diety on a pogo stick, what the hell has gotten into the opposition party? The comments, dissected in the Corner: <<< Q: 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? 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. 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? 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. >>> I had said that when Sen. Patty Murray had said that the reason Osama bin Laden is popular in the Middle East was because of his construction of day-care centers, that she ought to have had her senator-ship revoked somehow. I know there’s no constitutional mechanism, and that this sounds a bit like Dictator Jim ejecting lawmakers that really infuriate him, but I contend that is possible to be too ignorant and uninformed to have a voice in making-policy. If you do not understand about America’s decade after decade of sending foreign aid to the Middle East and the actual nature of al-Qaeda (hint: they are not a day care center construction organization) then you should not have a seat at the table. Go play in the sandbox while the grownups handle this. Similarly, in this exchange, Pelosi a) completely misunderstands the Cornyn bill. Maybe she hadn’t heard of it yet, or maybe the reporter did frame the question poorly. Okay, this mistake is excusable. But then b) she suggests this is an issue regarding the separation of church and state. Huh? Where? The objection to the decision is based on what most would call libertarian individual-right-to-property grounds. Somehow she sees this as another part of the GOP effort to establish a theocracy. Finally, and ironically, she suggests the Supreme Court is an entity whose authority is as final as God. Did anybody hear thunder in the background after she spoke? (Attention, Mr. Rove: There is your get-out-the-base attack ad for House races right there. Can you hear the announcer now? “Nancy Pelosi says that when the Supreme Court speaks, ‘as if God has spoken.’ This November, remind Pelosi and the Democrats about the difference between God and the Supreme Court.”) To say nothing of the fact that this was a bad decision that has property owners of left, right and center up in arms. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but maybe Pelosi needs to read more Daily Kos to get a sense of what the grassroots thinks of this decision. By the way, what’s so wrong with a constitutional amendment that spells out, clearly and specifically, what constitutes ‘public use’ and when government can seize property? tks.nationalreview.com corner.nationalreview.com