Redstate

would be my vote.

"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."

That babble is just priceless.

Slam dunk.

Scary thought. Dick Durbin is dumber.

always thought so.  Her response was rambling and off-topic.

Beware this fantasy scenario: the dems retake the house & senate next year; Cheney & Bush get implicated in some watergate-like scandal (Plame, DSM, etc.), Cheney resigns first and the Senate jams Bush's new VP pick before he himself is forced out.  Guess who the next President of the United States is?  Pelosi!

Still, she's not the dumbest by any standard.  Political discourse really sucks.  Check out Scottie McClellan:

Q: I asked you whether he had to do any community service while he was in the National Guard.

Scott McClellan: Can I walk through this?

Q: It's a very legitimate question.

Scott McClellan: And I want to back up and walk through this a little bit. Let's talk about the issue that came up, because this issue came up four years ago, it came up four years before that -- or two years before that, it came up four years before that --

Not to mention that Pelosi's quotes have yet to fill an entire book.  He forgot Poland!  Do you have blacks too?  I know how hard it is to put food on your family.

Good luck with the who's more stupid debate.

But a knee-jerk recording of liberal talking points as well.

This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well.

Ms. Pelosi apparently doesn't realize that not all Supreme Court rulings have to do with the separartion of church and state. How personal property has anything to do church-state is beyond me. The two aren't even mentioned in the same amendment. Prehaps the "wall of separation" diatribe is so firmly hardwired into her brain she couldn't help but say it when discussing a SCOTUS decision.

according to her, that would make that little pudgy bald guy on my city coucil..., God? Well, I wonder if this God is bullet proof?

She get's my idiot, not well informed, seemed to be caught off guard and made a total moron out of herself, vote.

Umm, to put it mildly.

Your child's 8th grade Civics teacher had uttered such an abomination.

I'll grant that Pelosi's IQ is above room temperature, but it's a little frightening that the House Minority Leader thinks that USOC's rulings come from on high. The ACLU must be mortified and Mr. Jefferson, spinning.

Do you have anything substantive to contribute to any debate, be it this or others? We are having a discussion about the remarks of the minority leader of the house - if you want to babble on about the White House Press Secretary, for goodness' sake, do it on your own time and quit wasting ours. Consider yourself warned.

And, if you are remotely familiar with recent history, you will understand that McLellan was discussing the fact that the issue of Bush's TANG service was brought up four years ago (Presidential election of 2000), two years before that (Texas gubernatorial election of 1998) and four years before that (Texas gubernatorial election of 1994). It's all pretty easy to follow if you're any smarter than, say, Nancy Pelosi.

I must conceed she is correct about one thing, it will be an act of Congress through Amendment that this decision is tossed out on it's a**. Once one amendment goes through, it might be easier to get a harder one through shortly thereafter.

What? I have no idea what you said. And, I thought I wrote poorly.

I see that you, too, are incapable of staying away.

Which is good.

And don't bother trying to understand corph.

I'll bet she didn't show nearly that much deference to the Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore.  By her logic, God made Bush President.

I'm sorry, I guess you didn't understand the broader point about how politicians tend to ramble when asked tricky questions.  Pelosi was trying to make a point about not holding back funds for enforcement of decisions she disagreed with.  The God reference was out of place and made her sound silly.

But do you not see the parallels with the McClellan quote?  In both cases they were asked tough questions and the response was clear as mud.  I'm just trying to put your Pelosi rant in perspective.

Oh, and the stuff you didn't understand, like

"He forgot Poland"

"I know how hard it is to put food on your family"

and

"Do you have blacks, too"

are all G.W. Bush quotes.  2004 debate, 2000 campaign and 2002 quote to the President of Brazil respectively.  I thought politicos like you folks would be familiar with them.

I was wondering if you could see the irony with sniping at muddled responses from Pelosi when your own commander-in-chief comes up with such doozies.

And what's with the threat?  I'm not being inflammatory.  Whenever I post a comment critical of Republicans, I always get a Durbin or Dean quote thrown back at me, and always completely off-topic.  Don't tell me you can't take it.

God is the definitively unchallegeable being. The Supreme Court has, as is its wont, made a nigh-unchallengeable ruling. Therefore, it is, metaphorically speaking, as if the Gods of American government have spoken. Whining will do us little good. If you want to overturn the ruling, propose an amendment to Congress. If you will not do so (and I for one think someone should), shut your trap. That's Pelosi's readily apparent point, deriveable with a quarter second's thought, and I think you know it as well as I do.

Ms. Pelosi clearly meant to say "separation of powers" but had the phrase "separation of church and state" on her mind. A Freudian slip, if you will, though I'm sure there's a better and less connotative term for it somewhere in psychology that the mists of time have stolen from me. (The irony of a party under President Bush--who is, everything else about him aside, about one step below Quayle on the dyslexic scale--attempting to raise hell about malapropisms isn't lost on me, but that's a different problem.)

I vote "Lightweight", by the way. I'm not a fan of Pelosi, but I find attacks of such quibblical nature childish, no matter which side of the aisle they're coming from at any given moment. If you don't have anything productive to say, just... don't talk.

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?

And in case that was somewhat confusing, the reporter even made it clearer:

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.

A confusing question, that is not. Not to anyone who's - say, heard of the Kelo decision, and vaguely understands anything that it's about. Which we'd certainly hope the minority leader of the House would be capable of doing.

And what's with the threat?  I'm not being inflammatory.  Whenever I post a comment critical of Republicans, I always get a Durbin or Dean quote thrown back at me, and always completely off-topic.  Don't tell me you can't take it.

This is a Republican site. You are here as a guest, and should act accordingly, or you will be ushered out the door. You'll notice that I didn't mention Durbin or Dean once in response to you, or any other liberal today. Or any of the last five days, for that matter.

The point is, let's try and end some posts without including the words "good luck" followed by some snarky and ridiculous canard. We have little patience these days because there's a million of you all doing the same thing now that school's out for the summer, and we'd rather our site not be overrun by moonbats. DailyKos already exists for that.

although the God slip was fun to joke with. No, the mistake was choosing the moment to go after something some Republican said about funding the decision rather than saying;

"Hell yeah, I'd withhold funding too. Indeed, we'll need a constitutional amendment to overturn this tragedy and both Republican's and Democrats have a vested interest in getting this immediately corrected".

I don't do Democratic party bashing like many tend to sometimes. But, this is no partisan issue. It was not wise at all to attempt to make that connection with this issue.

Particanship over substance of this most encompassing of American events and historic significance? I'll defend almost any Democrat or moderate Repubican if I feel they are getting a bad rape, but I find this particular waist pinching a bit tastless and hope with all my heart she finds a way in the very near furture to make her position clear and stray away from any partisanship that could derail efforts to get this decision overturned.

She's still an embarrassment at the very least with that shallow assessment of the circumstance and situation.

I'm a democrat...but my God, she sounded stupid.

. . .how many Democratic House members who voted for Pelosi for House Minority Leader over Harold Ford Jr. two and a half years ago would like to have their votes back about now.  Ford has defended the Kelo decision, but at least he didn't sound like a glue abuse survivor when he did so.

I guess I have failed Pelosi nuance.  That must make me a world class idiot.  :)

Whatever!

that myself.

I, for one, am d*mn glad the dems picked her over Harold Ford.  On some days, I think she might be a better gift than Howard Dean.

That is stunning. I'm stunned!

Is this what a slow news day looks like at Redstate?

I think the far simpler answer is that she was responding to a different ruling the same day.  The Ten Commandments ruling.  I don't know the circumstance, and how many questions were being shouted at once, or whatever, and maybe Pelosi didn't have her coffee.  But the evidence is that she was answering a different question.  She might be loopy or hearing voices, but she gave a crazy answer to an Emminent Domain question, but a very valid (though politician) answer to a question about the Ten Commandments.

Especially when faced with this quote from Rep. John Hostettler

"Congress can remove funds for the enforcement of this unconstitutional ruling."

What he's talking about is this idea that Congress should use its power of the purse to stop enforcement of the SCOTUS ruling on the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

The evidence is that Pelosi was responding to that one.   In that context, her comments make complete sense.

sense.  I just read the transcript and she was not asked about the 10 commandments.  She was specifically asked about Kelo.

Vote still stands-WORLD CLASS IDIOT!

to the full transcript. My personal take? It looks to me like she didn't know what Kelo was and decided to fire off some stock generalities about the supremacy of the judicial branch and the need to respect it. Given that there's an increasing desire on the Republican side to bring in strict constructionism and stare decisis be hanged, this seems like basically sound Democratic strategy. Unfortunately for her, it was a tactical gaffe in this particular situation, and misunderstanding the business about funding (enforcement?) made her look like she didn't know what was going on with Kelo, which is probably the case.

I think the real heat is coming out of the strategic conflict: demand for strict constructionism or something like it is gaining a lot of momentum on the Right, and Kelo may even spark some interest in it among the center and the Left. Apparently the counter to this from the "living Constitution" side will be the suggestion of judicial infallibility, as it were.

I just read it again.  I never once saw any reference to the 10 commandments case.

Kelo, eminent domain, and economic development were all mentioned.

Even if she got the case names mixed up, she is still an idiot.  Eminent domain and economic development should have been BIG clues for her.

Still a world class idiot.

I wish she'd said this before I wrote this, because I'd have been a lot more motivated.

I bet it happens all the time in press conferences where a pol answers the question they were briefed for rather than the one they were asked.

She was on autopilot, I agree.  

Give the gal a microphone, and there are plenty for her, and a warped sense of belief in her intellectual abilities, which I assume she has always had, and we'll get a good show.

I wonder if Jon Stewart did a bit on this.  I'd have him roll tape, stair at the camera for a few moments in confusion, then toss up his papers and walk off camera, shaking his head in disbelief.

Actually this it what it looks like at a Republican website, where we get to mock lefty idiots.

And I'm not.  She may think that the SC is the final word, and you apparently concur, but this ruling was NOT a ruling that the legislature was doing something unconstitutional and therefore nullified their activities.  

It was a ruling that their action was NOT unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that we citizens can't make them stop it anyway (because we happen to believe it IS unconstitutional.)  We DO NOT need an amendment to the Constitution to stop them (just a little bipartisan rabblerousing should do the trick.)

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the ruling should know that, and I happen to believe the top D in the House should have rudimentary knowledge of it.  Her reaction shows that she has not made any attempt to find out anything about the ruling, though there are votes in the House on the issue already proposed.  She reacted with a knee jerk, "The R's disapprove, so it must be OK."  Stupid.

Therefore, my vote is world class idiot.

I show on my page how the Washington Post cleaned up her remark and left out the Supreme Court = God idiocy.

just who are YOU to determine what is "productive talk" and what isn't.

Let me quote another sage philosopher, Anonymous--if you don't have anything nice to say, best not to say anything at all.

You're free here to make pointed comments.  But, all adults should do so nicely, dontcha think?

Nancy Pelosi is the gift that keeps on giving.

I'll bet she shys away from microphones for the near term, and the MSM obliges by not hunting her aggressively, in a search for more "juicy" comments.

Seems to me that she can be both a world class idiot and an intellectual lightweight at the same time.

In some circles the combination might even be common :D

Yeah, and sometimes you manage to find an actual lefty idiot, and I think "Man, what an idiot," or "Jeez, Dean managed to put his foot in it again."

But this, this is like "You took the time to sit down and write about politics, and *this* is what came out? Wow."

Oh well, Lucky for you you can talk about supreme court nominees now.

Ok, so, Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean as the bigger buffoon in the Democratic Party? Hmmm...such a hard decision to make. One's virtually insane and the other is....slow maybe? Oh well, I hope they both continue to give their gifts.