Pelosi says to respect the Supreme Court...but really?

However, I think she means to respect the decisions of the USSC only when she agrees with the outcome.

New York Newsday had an article about Congress' attempt to blunt the horrendous USSC ruling that state and local governments can seize private property to give to private entities for the sole purpose of generating more tax revenue. Basically, Congress wants to ban the use of federal funds (including community development block grants) for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London decision. But how about this gem from the gift that keeps on giving...Nancy Pelosi?

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California says she is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

So we need to respect USSC decisions, huh? Why, then, has she fought tooth and nail against a President that she has publicly said was installed by the USSC in 2000? She and her ilk have always maintained that Bush was not elected, but "selected", by the USSC...but now, all of a sudden, she thinks we need to shut up and respect their decisions?

By the way, she clearly supports the Kelo decision, because it empowers government and squashes individual rights. She told National Review as much, when asked if she thought it was appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development: "The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that." Well, the USSC decided, having heard the particulars of Bush v. Gore, that the Florida Supreme Court was legislating from the bench in 2000 and ordered a halt to the unconstitutional recount...yet she offers no such deference to the USSC for that ruling? The only conclusion, then, that one may come to is that Pelosi supports government-authorized theft of private property, and she's trying to use the ruling as legal cover to her wrinkled posterior.

However, she's an idiot. I mean, look at her words: "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court"! The decision of the Court was NOT to force local governments to take property, but to allow local governments to decide for themselves if their takings constituted "public use." Denying federal funding to these local governments is not a failure to enforce a Court order! It is Congress telling those communities that there will be a price tag attached to their $eizures.

By the way, the House bill to deny funds was sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). Its Democratic co-sponsors include Reps. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Maxine Waters (Calif.) and Peter A. DeFazio (Ore.). When was the last time Conyers, Waters, and DeFazio agreed with Tom DeLay? Even socialist Bernie Sanders (Indy from Vermont) is on board with the House bill. With this tri-partisan bill, what headline does the New York Times run with?

Republican Lawmakers Fire Back at Judiciary

Nope...no media bias.