Virginia Postrel Busts Nancy Pelosi:


The House has passed an amendment prohibiting the use of federal funds to seize private property for private economic development projects. In its report on the bill, the LAT quotes [House minority leader Nancy Pelosi]'s reason for opposing it. She said she doesn't want to withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

This is, of course, a complete non sequitur. The Supreme Court's Kelo decision in no way said that cities must take private property or that Congress should encourage takings. It said those takings weren't constitutional prohibited. If anything, the House bill enforces Kelo, which requires legislative, rather than constitutional, protections at the federal level. . . .

Absolutely right. See here for Virginia's post, which has some more material on this.

Eh Nonymous (mail) (www):
Heh. Nice catch, I suppose.

Of course, I don't know Nancy's background - what's that you say? A politician, not a lawyer? Well, it's a bit unorthodox.

Maybe that means she fails to grasp the difference, subtle though it may be, between may and shall? The Supreme Court ('s liberal wing, alas, plus Scalia) said "may" although it said "oughtn't, maybe, sorta", while the proposed bill says "won't and shan't and mayn't with our funds." Which yes, undermines some of the _implications_ of Kelo, but soitanly not the legal opinion.

I suspect Nancy's more confused than evil. As with most folks. Never attribute to evil what can satisfactorily be explained by delusion, confusion, stupidity, inanity, or lack of sleep.
7.5.2005 10:29am
jallgor (mail):
If you read the full excerpt of Pelosi's interview her level of confusion is truly terrifying. It includes a portion where she thinks the proposed bill is designed to withgold the Supreme Court's funding! Huh? I find it really disturbing that the house minority leader could be so think.
7.5.2005 1:41pm