[SkyPilot]

Incredible.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The Libs on the High Court are her kind of people. Fascists.

[Graymatter]

And every silver lining has a cloud. The President has not come out with a strong statement of opposition to the Court's decision. Silence, too, is a statement.

[Graymatter]

Pelosi then added: "And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision."

Nor is George W. Bush.

[Itzlzha]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said she "would oppose any legislation that says that we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."
She then added: "And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision."
Arguing that Congress has no business interfering with the ruling unless it wants to amend the Constitution, Mrs. Pelosi said: "This is almost as if God has spoken."

Well now...isn't THAT special!

So if we ...BYRD( code word good enough?)...a few Judges, and replace them with ones that actually have READING COMPREHENSION, and a REAL UNDERSTANDING of Constitutional Law....and we overturn the ENTIRE ACTIVIST HISTORY...will Ms. AmeriKKKa Pelosi think THOSE rulings are from God too?

I have HAD WAY too much of Judges that can "reinterperet" law ANY WAY they want!

If the law is that "Living and mutable", then I can do it too...see, I want the ability to obey and determine the laws the way I want too!

Judge. Rope. Tree.
(some assembly required)

I hasten to add "SENATORS/REPRESENTATIVES/Judge. Rope. Tree." to that pithy statement!

[kenth]

Well, the dems have turned the courts into their temples. They view their ability to regain power not through their message, or lack thereof, and support of the people, but through the over-reaching power of the courts.

[TheeOhioInfidel]

Maybe I'm naive, but there's something I can't understand. With the democrats losing the election, losing control over the legislature, and with their overall limp responses to international terrorism, why would they not appear outspoken about an issue that many common libs find just as appaling? How much more do they want to distance themselves from public opinion? Where is the outcry for the little guy? How stupid can they be ?

[America's Resolve]

Arguing that Congress has no business interfering with the ruling unless it wants to amend the Constitution,

To start with, we shouldn't HAVE to amend the Constitution. The 5th Amendment is supposed to protect our land from being siezed by the government.

I'm not sure that it would do any good to propose an amendment that can be ignored just as easily as the 5th amendment can be.

But then again, that seems to be our only recourse right now. A Constitutional Amendment.

[1Old Pro]

Congress has no business interfering with the ruling..

Pelosi thinks that the SCOTUS creates law and Congress interpretes/enforces it.....too funny.

[QuiMundus]

[gridlock]

"This is almost as if God has spoken."

David Souter - Almost Like God,

[FReethesheeples]

Good post. Thanks for your post. Bump.

As a result of outrage over Kelo vs. New London, Ct., it is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.

For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection 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 Constitution" 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 critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.

[marty60]

HER god. sick mind that makes a pronouncement of GOD powers on 9 Men and Women. Does anyone doubt the evil that lurks in the dark recesses of the Dumocrat mind.

This should be MAJOR headlines in all newspapers. HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI D-CA, TODAY PROCLAIMED THE 9 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES GODS.