I hope Pelosi is not their best

[CYLLON]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi typifies the total disdain and lack of knowledge concerning the constitution.When asked about the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London .Senator Jon Cornyn will introduce legislation to restrict the use of federal funds for projects such as those involved in the Kelo case . When reporters asked Pelosi about Cornyn's effort;

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?

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.

She shows she knows nothing about Constitutional law, the Kelo decision, or even the power invested in the Congress that she supposedly leads.Typical of the loony left that has taken over the democratic party.
Pelosi has no clue to Cornyn's well-publicized effort.The legislation will NOt "withhold funds from the court".It would however from projects that take private land for private use. Even when the reporter clarified this, Pelosi still didn't quite get it: "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court." WHATS to enforce. The court said governments may not they must use eminent domain in this fashion.

How in the world she comes up with the idea that Cornyn's proposal would defund the Supreme Court is a mystery/. Or maybe its just the start to another string of lies the left will use to demonize the repubs .....not unlike what they did with the filibuster debate.HAT PELOSI;
Congress doesn't have to "enforce" anything on this decision. What it is empowered to do is set conditions for the use of federal funds for supposed urban-renewal projects.THAT ITS JOB.It may restrict funds to projects that use eminent domain to seize lands for the benefit of another private owner. Nothing in Kelo says they cant do this.Fact is the majority opinion states that SCOTUS wants the legislature at each level to take responsibility for use of ED. Cornyn trying to use the legitimate power of the legislature to ensure that federal funds don't get used to diminish private-property rights -- which doesn't conflict with Kelo at all.This would not have even been needed if the SCOTUS followed the Constitution in its decision to start with.

Now get this,Pelosi also said when when the Supreme Court renders a decision, it "is almost as if God has spoken."But that dose not matter because church and state must be kept separate, right? This is tantamount to God telling moses "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel--but whatever you do, don't tell anyone!"
Besides, the Supreme Court is not God in our system by a long shot. In fact they were intended to be the weakest of the 3 branches. The judiciary is a co-equal branch to the Legislature and the Executive at best. Congress represents the people and in no way was it meant too nor should it bow before the nine robed members of SCOTUS, and neither does the President. This is basic high-school graduate stuff.

http://releases.usnewswire.com./GetRelease.asp?id=49773

[lily]

Pelosi is a card-carrying socialist, that's why she has total disdain for the constitution. This is a good example of 'enemy within'...

Archived Progressive Caucus pages from Democratic Socialists of America web site

[CCC]

You got a problem with judicial oligarchs?

Time to whip you serfs, but good!

[Patrician]

Originally Posted by buttercup

Pelosi is a card-carrying socialist, that's why she has total disdain for the constitution. This is a good example of 'enemy within'...

Archived Progressive Caucus pages from Democratic Socialists of America web site

Wow thats scary stuff. Ultra left-wing extremism, basically trying to stamp out most of the constitution. Sounds like communism.

[Patrician]

Minority Leader Pelosi Declares War in Afghanistan over:

Reporter: You said in your remarks that some of these detainees had been in custody for four years without being charged. The administration's position is that these are enemy combatants, who, just as in World War II, German soldiers who were captured by U.S. forces were held for the duration of the conflict. The administration's position is that these enemy combatants must be held for the duration of the conflict, so that they do not return to the field of battle. And I wondered, do you disagree with that view? And why do you disagree with that view?

NP: The field of conflict here is Afghanistan. Most of the detainees at Guantanamo are from Afghanistan. I assume that the war in Afghanistan is over. Or is the contention that you have that it continues? Is this...you know, most of them arrived there in October...many of them arrived there in October of 2001. The time is long overdue for the administration to establish a policy of how to differentiate. These people were in battle against us, as Mr. Skelton said. They were against the United States. Some of them pose a very serious...may pose a very serious threat to America. Others can be dealt with in a way that helps us focus where the problem really is. So this isn't about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan is over.

http://www.radioblogger.com/#000800

Now here is the latest news from Afghanistan:

'Lucky shot' downed chopper in Afghanistan: US

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...7/s1405359.htm

Taliban Kill Village Elders In Afghanistan

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...476209ee5.html

How can one woman be so dumb?

[Corporate Avenger]

Originally Posted by buttercup

Pelosi is a card-carrying socialist, that's why she has total disdain for the constitution. This is a good example of 'enemy within'...

Archived Progressive Caucus pages from Democratic Socialists of America web site

Sorry but that's hilarious, although not as funny as Contras crazy rantings..

[Patrician]

Originally Posted by Corporate Avenger

Sorry but that's hilarious, although not as funny as Contras crazy rantings..

Still baiting me I see....sounds like a personal attack

[Corporate Avenger]

Originally Posted by Dazen

Still baiting me I see....sounds like a personal attack

Should I list yours?

[Scott]

What's wrong with being a socialist?

[Patrician]

Originally Posted by Scott

What's wrong with being a socialist?

Everything?

[lily]

Originally Posted by Scott

What's wrong with being a socialist?

We could do a whole thread on that, but for one, most of those socialists hate this country and the constitution, they want to destroy it and put into place something we were never meant to be. More government is not a good thing, especially when that government is corrupt, and doesn't really care about individual rights, they care only about control.

[Betrade]

Pelosi is slightly to the left of Lenin.

I hope the Democrats continue to parade the likes of her and Howard Dean in public. That way, the public will see what they really stand for beneath the old rhetoric of being for the "working man".

They don't get it. Instead of moving to the center, the party leadership is going as far left as they posibbly can. They're picking the most extreme members of their party as spokespeople. It's no wonder they can no longer win elections outside of the big cities.

[Sinclair]

Originally Posted by Betrade

Pelosi is slightly to the left of Lenin.

You gotta tell me that's hyperbole. Seriously.

I doubt that if in power, Pelosi would purge the armed forces, plunge the US into civil war, and force people onto collective farms.

[CYLLON]

Originally Posted by Sinclair

You gotta tell me that's hyperbole. Seriously.

I doubt that if in power, Pelosi would purge the armed forces, plunge the US into civil war, and force people onto collective farms.

No because we would not let here even get close to achiving her goal. A bulet is a very usefull thing in the hands of a patriot.The founders thaough so and stipulated that the people own, supply and arm themselves for the defense of the nation via militias.

[Sinclair]

Paranoia. The left in the US is pretty damn cozy. Even the furthest left bits of the Dems, think the Michael Moore left, are still happy with the system as it treats them: The big corporations give them donations in exchange for appropriations, and their civilian counterparts have book deals.

I guarantee you that the people in the US who actually want to do it Lenin-style think Pelosi is another capitalist lackey.

[jack_boot]

Originally Posted by Sinclair

You gotta tell me that's hyperbole. Seriously.

Well, I don't think so. I think her politics are very closely aligned to Comintern, as are the politics of tens of millions of other people in the West. There's nothing outrageous in that observation.

I doubt that if in power, Pelosi would purge the armed forces...

With the possible exception of the Commandant of Marines, the Joint Chiefs are entirely political officers. Any president, as commander-in-chief, can "purge" the general officers. He, or she, simply fires them and appoints new ones. They aren't taken out and shot, of course, merely sent to the golf links.

...and force people onto collective farms.

I doubt that, too, but Nancy has no problem with the recent SCOTUS decision which, writ large, means that all property is actually state property. To her way of thinking, well, of course, the better to suit the public good.

The alleged conservatives in Congress presently fulminating against this decision are merely posturing for votes. Eminent domain, manifest destiny, asset forfeiture, astronomical fines - all these policies are justification, legalization, and affirmations of government takings. We don't see DeLay and his bunch talking about asset forfeiture, do we?

The government can take anything it wants, always has been able to, and there is nothing you can do about it. The recent SCOTUS blather is merely the same bird viewed through a different lens.

[boedicca]

Originally Posted by Scott

What's wrong with being a socialist?

The Kelo vs. New London decision, for a good example.

[boedicca]

There are two reasons why Pelosi is not the worst Dem CA has to offer:

- Barbara Lee (my represenative here in Oaktown, much to my utter and complete disgust)

- Barbara Boxer

[Scott]

Whatever......I stick by my beliefs


i'm not 100% socialist....just have some socialist views

[Sinclair]

Originally Posted by jack_boot

Well, I don't think so. I think her politics are very closely aligned to Comintern, as are the politics of tens of millions of other people in the West. There's nothing outrageous in that observation.

Tens of millions of people in the West want to see Marxist-Leninist reign supreme over the world?

Her politics are mediocre-Democrat. The Democrats are wusses. They're too damn weak to resist the Republicans. The Republicans are currently superior in basically every method of political maneuver.

They talk and talk and talk about things that are further-left than anything they'd be able to get into in power, and even then they aren't talking that far-left, because there's no fire. No talk of hanging the last X with the guts of the last Y.

Howard Dean is a bit of a twit, but at least he doesn't spend half his time apologising, like most Democrats seem to do.

Me, I blame Clinton for this whole sorry state of affairs. He did bring the Democrats closer to the centre, and while he could make up for the fact that the Dems were stabbing quite a bit of their traditional constituency in the back, it's not as though all the Congress Dems had the Slick Willy magic. And so they lost seats.