House Votes To Undercut High Court On Property (Nancy Pelosi expose follows excerpt)

The Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2005

[Founding Father]

The House voted yesterday to use the spending power of Congress to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes. Key members of the House and Senate vowed to take even broader steps soon.

---snip---

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the measure. "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she told reporters. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution."

[Founding Father]

During her June 30, 2005 press conference

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

Pelosi states:

"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?

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.

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?

Ms. 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.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that."

Notice the phrase, "this is almost as if God has spoken."

Who is Nancy Pelosi's God? Well, there was an interesting development in the Bay Area as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/02/BAGO4DI6GJ1.DTL

"Last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling approving a Connecticut city's plan to take private land by eminent domain may seem far away.

But to John Revelli, whose family has operated a tire shop near downtown Oakland for decades, the implications hit home on Friday.

A team of contractors hired by the city of Oakland packed the contents of his small auto shop in a moving van and evicted Revelli from the property his family has owned since 1949.

"I have the perfect location; my customers who work downtown can drop off their cars and walk back here," said Revelli, 65, pointing at the nearby high- rises. "The city is taking it all away from me to give someone else. It's not fair."

The city of Oakland, using eminent domain, seized Revelli Tire and the adjacent property, owner-operated Autohouse, on 20th Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues on Friday and evicted the longtime property owners, who have refused to sell to clear the way for a large housing development.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last week paved the way for local governments to buy out unwilling property owners, demolish homes and businesses, and turn that land over to new owners for development. Last week's ruling expanded on earlier decisions that allowed agencies to take property only if it is considered "blighted" or run-down.

"The city thinks I cause 'economic blight' because I don't produce enough tax revenue,'' Revelli said. "We thought we'd win, but the Supreme Court took away my last chance."

The two properties, which total 6,500 square feet, were being forced to move or sell because their businesses are on a larger section of land that is slated for the Uptown Project, a city-subsidized real estate development that is expected to include nearly 1,200 apartments and condominiums.

The project's wedge-shaped lot, just west of the 19th Street BART Station, includes several blocks roughly bounded by 20th Street, 17th Street, Telegraph Avenue and San Pablo Avenue.

Both Revelli Tire and Autohouse, owned and operated by Tony Fung, are on the northern edge of the project in the 400 block of 20th Street, which is also called Thomas L. Berkley Way.

The eviction came as no surprise to Revelli and Fung. The city has designated their block as a redevelopment area for about 20 years. Before approving the Uptown Project last year, the city considered putting in a shopping mall, then an arena for the Golden State Warriors and later a ballpark for the Oakland Athletics.

The decision to build market-rate housing on the site, subsidized by $61 million in city redevelopment funds, is the keystone in Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to revitalize downtown Oakland by putting in homes for 10,000 new residents there.

"This is the part of redevelopment everyone hates," said Hamid Gami, who is coordinating the relocation for Oakland's Community and Economic Development Agency.

"It's tough. They're good people. We've offered them fair compensation, and we hope to come to an agreement. But this is a really important new development. The city has been trying to do this for years. It's good for all of Oakland. It's going to be a great project."

Gami said he hopes to work out a settlement with Revelli and Fung.

The business owners said they clung to hopes that the eminent domain decision might be overturned in court or that they could persuade the city to build the project and leave them alone.

"All those new residents will need someone to work on their cars," said Revelli, who has been working in the shop since he was in third grade helping his dad and uncle. "I don't want their money. I don't want to move. I just want to work right here."

Most of the other businesses closed their doors and left in the past two years. The only other holdout, Chef Edward's Barbeque, is expected to reopen about a block and a half away.

Fung and Revelli said the money offered by the city, about $100 per square foot plus relocation costs, was insufficient, saying the real estate boom has priced them out of nearby properties. They own their properties outright and have operated with low overhead.

"John works alone; I have one technician working with me -- that's it, '' said Fung, who bought his 2,500-square-foot shop in 1993. "The cost of buying or leasing a new site is prohibitive. The money the city offered me does not cover it."

Revelli, who has worked alone for the past 35 years, said no other location is as good as what he is losing.

"My customers are mainly women who work in the offices downtown. They can take BART if they have to leave their cars overnight," Revelli said. "There's really no equivalent location around here."

Both men said Friday that losing their businesses was like losing a piece of themselves.

"I've worked here full time since 1959, and I looked forward to coming to work every day," Revelli said. "I'm not ready to retire, but the city forced me into this. I don't have many options."

Fung, who is in his late 40s and raising his children, said retirement is not an option.

"I'm an immigrant from China, and this has been the fulfillment of my American dream," Fung said. "I worked hard. I played by the rules. But now it's all gone. I've got to start all over." "

Who is the private developer that is the beneficiary of this taking of property form the Mom and Pop business owners? Nancy Pelosi knows.

You can learn more about the Uptown project here:

http://www.urbanstrategies.org/programs/econopp/REAP/ed_watch/2003-03-24.html

One interesting excerpt tells who the developer is:

"The Uptown Project, to be developed by Uptown Partners, LLC (Forest City Residential West) calls for approximately 1,500 to 1,700 residential units, 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of commercial, retail and service uses, a 25,000 square foot park, and 1,700 to 2,000 parking spaces primarily in parking structures."

Now, who is Forest City Residential West?? A multi-state development company whose co-chairman is Albert B. Ratner:

http://www.fceinc.com/about_board_a_ratner.html

So who is Albert B. Ratner? Why he and other members of the Ratner family are contributors to, drumroll surprise, one Nancy Pelosi and other democrats.

http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=Ratner&txtState=OH&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=Pelosi&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&Order=N"

http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?Order=D&txtName=Ratner&txtState=OH&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N

The Ratners gave over $700,OOO in the last cycle, some to republicans.

Would you believe it gets even better? Ratner's brother, Michael, is the head of the George Soros funded Center for Constitutional Rights

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18446

Forest City also is the developer of property seized by NYC for the purpose of transferring to the New York Times and is developing a large expropriated tract in Brooklyn,

http://www.westsidestadium.com/content/newsarchives/nyt60905brooklyn.htm

See also:

http://reason.com/sullum/070105.shtml

Follow the money and it is no surprise that democrats are supportive of the Kelo decision as are NYC, SF and Oakland city governments.

For a more complete review, go here:

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007915.php

[muawiyah]

The violation of the "separation of powers" doctrine occurs in the guise of funds the federales send directly to local governments.

A return to original principles would eliminate all such funds!

Pelosi just doesn't get it.

[Noachian]

"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she told reporters.

Will Pelosi feel the same way with a Conservative majority on the court, or does her "God-like" devotion only apply to liberal activist judges?

[Cicero]

Good grief. That's the most incredible interview I've ever seen!

The reporter says, "I apologize if I framed the question poorly." But she deliberately misunderstands the question twice, and then goes on to lie about the nature of the congressional resolution and the nature of the separation of powers.

I don't think she's stupid enough to believe any of this stuff, but I've seldom seen a more confused and self-indicting propaganda statement.

[FreedomNeocon]

Q: Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. 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.

Someone call RUSH to confirm his 'prediction' of the SC being their 'relgion' and the Justices GODS.

[Cicero]

By contrast, the Washington Post article is surprisingly fair and objective.

I wonder which 31 Republicans voted against?

[planekT]

...Pelosi just doesn't get it....

You said a mouthful there. If she thinks the Supreme Court cannot be questioned, then what the hell do we need representatives for?

I hope the people get it one of these days and vote her and her kind out.

[concerned about politics]

"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she told reporters. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution."

The court doesn't make laws. They simply enforce them.
The liberal activists abused their power, and the house is taking the law back. It's not a violation of the Constitution. The house is correcting the error.

[concerned about politics]

"So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision."

Someone call RUSH to confirm his 'prediction' of the SC being their 'relgion' and the Justices GODS.

Holy crap! The liberals do see the judges as their pagan Gods! Now THAT is scary!

[skr]

I don't think she's stupid enough to believe any of this stuff, but I've seldom seen a more confused and self-indicting propaganda statement.

I've not read a lot of what Ms. Pelosi has said (mainly because it doesn't take long to see what a waste of time it is) but what I have read leads me to believe she truly is that unintelligent. Her voters have a lot to answer for.

[Ron in Acreage]

She's as dumb as a fence post. What an embarrassment to Cali.

[Timocrat]

A return to original principles would eliminate all such funds!

Exactly. Search as I may I have yet to find authority for the spending of such funds. Congress clearly went beyond the powers delegated to it under The Constitution. The fact that it is now retreating slightly should be applauded.

[bt_dooftlook]

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.

You might notice that the Post article bowdlerizes Ms Pelosi's quote so that she doesn't appear to be a complete moron to its readers...

[Congressman Billybob]

It is fascinating to me, as an old Court hand, that the judicial issue is becoming the dominant one, and they are fumbling the ball in both the House and the Senate. Here, Pelosi demonstrates her utter cluelessness, and total disconnect from the normal people of the United States.

Of course, Chuck Schumer held up his end in the same department with his comment on Amtrak that "This is war," on Supreme Court appointments, before any nomination had been made. The lib-Dems are on the wrong side of what is now a major issue in America.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Replace Justice O'Connor -- But Which One?"

[vpintheak]

Is she dumber than dog dookie or what?

[lewislynn]

The decision to build market-rate housing on the site, subsidized by $61 million in city redevelopment funds, is the keystone in Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to revitalize downtown Oakland by putting in homes for 10,000 new residents there

There are no redevelopment funds without federal "redevelopment funds"...They may have screwed themselves out of federal funding.

[kublia khan]

1 was a disgusting Rino who represents my district in VA. Frank Wolf

[Zack Attack]

Ms. 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.

LOL. Now here's a tact worth trying. Couldn't the decision be overturned on the basis of the state(SCOTUS) imposing its religion on the masses.

[RWR8189]

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 350(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
      H R 3058      RECORDED VOTE      30-Jun-2005      2:38 PM
      AUTHOR(S):  Garrett of New Jersey Amendment
      QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Amendment

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Republican	192	31		7
Democratic	39	157		6
Independent		1
TOTALS	231	189		13

---- AYES    231 ---

Abercrombie Aderholt Akin Alexander Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bass Beauprez Berry Biggert Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonilla Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boustany Boyd Bradley (NH) Brady (TX) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Capito Carter Chabot Chandler Chocola Clay Clyburn Coble Cole (OK) Conaway Conyers Costello Cox Crenshaw Cubin Cuellar Culberson Cunningham Davis (KY) Davis (TN) Davis, Jo Ann Deal (GA) DeFazio DeLay Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Emerson Feeney Ferguson Fitzpatrick (PA) Flake Foley Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Foxx

Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Gordon Graves Green (WI) Gutknecht Hall Harris Hart Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Herseth Higgins Hinchey Hoekstra Hooley Hostettler Hulshof Hunter Hyde Issa Istook Jackson-Lee (TX) Jenkins Jindal Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) King (IA) Kline Kuhl (NY) LaHood Leach Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Lynch Mack Manzullo Marchant Marshall Matheson McCaul (TX) McCotter McCrery McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMorris McNulty Melancon Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Mollohan Moran (KS) Murphy

Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Ney Northup Norwood Nunes Nussle Osborne Otter Pallone Paul Pearce Pence Peterson (MN) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pombo Pomeroy Porter Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Ramstad Rehberg Renzi Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Royce Ruppersberger Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Salazar Sanchez, Loretta Saxton Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shimkus Shuster Simmons Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Sodrel Souder Sullivan Sweeney Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiberi Upton Walden (OR) Wamp Waters Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Woolsey Young (AK) Young (FL)

---- NOES    189 ---

Ackerman Allen Andrews Baca Baird Baldwin Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boehlert Boswell Boucher Brady (PA) Brown (OH) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardin Cardoza Carnahan Carson Case Castle Cleaver Costa Crowley Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis, Tom DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Doyle Edwards Ehlers Emanuel Engel English (PA) Eshoo Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Filner Ford Frank (MA) Gonzalez Granger Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Harman

Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hinojosa Hobson Holden Holt Honda Hoyer Inglis (SC) Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jefferson Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (RI) Kildee Kilpatrick (MI) Kind King (NY) Kirk Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Maloney Markey Matsui McCarthy McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McKinney Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Michaud Millender-McDonald Miller (NC) Miller, George Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA)

Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Oxley Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Regula Reichert Reyes Reynolds Rothman Roybal-Allard Rush Ryan (OH) Sabo Sánchez, Linda T. Sanders Schakowsky Schwartz (PA) Schwarz (MI) Scott (VA) Serrano Shays Sherman Sherwood Simpson Skelton Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Spratt Stark Stearns Strickland Stupak Thomas Thompson (CA) Tierney Towns Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Walsh Wasserman Schultz Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Wexler Wolf Wu Wynn

---- NOT VOTING    13 ---

Bachus Bishop (GA) Cooper Cramer Everett

Kingston Peterson (PA) Rogers (AL) Ross Schiff

Scott (GA) Tiahrt Westmoreland

[Redbob]

"Now here's a tact worth trying."

That would be "tack," Zack!
Sailing vessels tack, in order to travel in a direction other than the one the wind is blowing, but often have to travel in several different directions to reach their intended destination.

These indirect paths are called "tacks."

[FReethesheeples]

Bump. Thanks for this post. For thsoe of us who are deeply condcerned with proeptction of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:

I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))

and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.

As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Consitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.

He has been sharply ciritcal of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme ct. decisons when they were both on that ct. and he has been quoted as being sharply crticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, inclduing being qu0oted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.

[kenth]

Someone needs to take Pelosi's house.

[Apercu]

Who voted this imbecile into office? Between Maxine Waters & Nancy Pelosi, there have never been 2 more representatives so ignorant of the U.S.Constitution.

Sorry, I forgot McKinney & the former Senator from Illinois - Mosely-Braun. Yikes!

[Sofa King]

"A fact sheet said under the bill the locality or state would "lose any federal funds that would contribute in any way to the project the property would be taken for.""

Out of curiosity, why are federal funds being spent on this type of project anyway?

[Razz Barry]

BTTT

[HHFi]

Dear Rep. Pelosi,

I really hate to have to point this out to you, considering what you do for a living, but there already IS a Constitutional amendment forbidding this. It's called the Fifth Amendment, and it's about halfway down the Bill of Rights, between the 2nd and 10th Amendments, both of which you, and this Supreme Court, also obviously have never noticed.

And just to clear up for you the difference between God and a Supreme Court Justice: You can't tar-and-feather God.

Any further confusion, feel free to call me.

[Jimmy Valentine]

'Pelosi just doesn't get it."

Right on the money!

Query; do you suppose she could pass the test necessary to become a citizen of The United States?

[HiTech RedNeck]

You can't tar-and-feather God.

Crucifixion, that's another story.

[HiTech RedNeck]

She would care if God spoke?

[gogogodzilla]

Maybe we should start a campaign to convince Wal-Mart to build a San Francisco-sized Wal-Mart... in San Francisco.

And have Wal-Mart invoke the recent Supreme Court decision to have California use it's imminent domain to seize all of San Francisco.

That way, the liberal idiots of San Francisco will see the consequence of voting for Pelosi.

And she would have to be the House representative for the one thing liberals hate the most... Wal-Mart.

[muawiyah]

Think of all the homeless who'd end up in San Jose. Oh, my the humanity!!!!!

[MarkL]

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.

Dear Ms Pelosi,

Since you think so highly of the Constitution, maybe you can point out exactly where in the Constitution it states that the US federal government is supposed to provide economic support for state economic development. It seems to me that since that sort of spending is NOT authorized by the Constitution, then if Congress withholds dollars from the states for any reason, that is a Constitutional action, and in fact, is required by all who took that oath you mentioned!

Mark

[MarkL]

She's as dumb as a fence post. What an embarrassment to Cali.

That's saying alot! But there are alot of CA politicians who are sent to Washington, DC who are embarrassments! Remember, this is the same state that gave us Maxine Waters!

Mark

[MarkL]

And just to clear up for you the difference between God and a Supreme Court Justice: You can't tar-and-feather God.

This is official notification that this line has been stolen and will be used over and over again in conversations. Feel free to bill me for the use. My credit ratings are in shambles, and my house if falling down... Sue me!

Mark

lol!!!

[Jarhead1957]

Texas Sayings

The engine's runnin' but ain't nobody driving

Translation: Not overly-intelligent.

[Jarhead1957]

Ooops, sorry Mark it was for Nancy P!!!!!!

[hellinahandcart]

Holy shirt, this post is a twofer. A Pelosi alert AND a Ratner alert. Yes, those Ratners.

Ratner is also involved in that stupid "freedom museum" at Ground Zero, ain't he?

[Marysecretary]

This is so sad. This is not the America I love. She's slowly disappearing and that makes me angry and very, very sad. I weep for my nation as I knew her.

[Zack Attack]

These indirect paths are called "tacks."

Ah! Thanks. And I guess I've always just assumed it was just short for "tactic".

This kinda reminds me of when I found out it actually was "Duck tape" and not really "Duct tape".

[ImNRA]

What should be noted by all citizens is the fact that ALL Supreme Court judges consitered 'liberal', voted to legalize public theft of private property and against the US Constitutions 5th amendment, and ALL Supreme Court judges consitered 'conservative' voted against it and to uphold the Constitution.
Does anyone still believe that liberals aren't in fact actually Socialists who believe in government-uber-alles? Me thinks the emperor has been exosed as having no clothes.

[VRWCRick]

Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson-Lee both have something that Pelosi doesn't, a bit of intelligence, at least when this eminent domain bill came up.

The voting pattern should be clear to anyone with the intelligence of an amoeba or better, it is the radical left Democrat party that favors this hideous ruling. Another reason to hope that Janice Rogers Brown is Bush's Supreme Court nominee.

[Still Thinking]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the measure. "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she told reporters. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution."

SCOTUS is only there to interpret the intent of legislation and to verify that that intent conforms to Constitutional limitations on government. They didn't rule that there was a Constitutional bar to legislation preventing ED abuse, in fact they explicitly pointed out that there was not, so creating such legislation is not "undermining" SCOTUS but correcting what SCOTUS sees as an omission.

Besides, what "undermining"? SCOTUS doesn't say "we can't overturn evan a bad law, that would violate separation of powers", so shy would Congress have to do so with respect to these inane decisions?

[Still Thinking]

And besides, Congress isn't trying to prohibit states from exercising the rights SCOTUS claims they have, just saying we choose not to pay you with federal money to do it. SCOTUS disn't say "There's no Constitutional problem with abusing ED, and furthermore, Congress is REQUIRED to fund such abuse." The ruling had nothing to do with Congress, and Congress' action has nothing to do with the ruling (other than expressing a desire not to fund it). Big woop.