The Corner has posted a link to the hilarious transcript of this interview, in which it is clear that Pelosi has no idea what's going on:

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.

I didn't know that the Supreme Court could speak ex cathedra and I thought that even with the Pope infallibility was limited to matters of church doctrine.

Did not see the video but assume her meds are a bit off.

David:

That's hysterical. Thanks for posting.

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

What the f***?

Raoul is correct.

I agree with Jonah Goldberg's comment that I didn't actually think that she was a moron before reading this, but it's hard to escape now.

Rep. Pelosi said, "almost as if God spoke" and in the halls of congress yet!

Is she really saying the higher authority than the Supreme Court isn't the World Court, as we've been led to believe, but God?

The mind boggles at the implications.

We've devolved quite a bit since the testy Andrew Jackson/John Marshall contretemps, haven't we?

I concur with most of the commments. This looks like major advanced psychosis. Having lost political power, the Democrats are spinning out of control. Once again, they are being steered to their own destruction like a radio-controlled model airplane.The Supreme Court ruled that hte Constitution did not forbid a taking under certain circumstances, it never said that anyone has a right to federal money to abet the taking.

MaxineWalters is a co-sponsor! Yet Peolosi is to her left. Wow.

Bob--

Maxine Waters is a co-sponsor, along with Rep. Conyers and others, because eminent domain is very unpopular with black and black leaders. Mostly because black people are disproportionately likely to have their homes taken away from them in order to be transformed into homes or shopping malls or whatever for the more wealthy.

A rich white woman democrat (Pelosi) is to the left of a rich black woman democrat (Waters).

I'm getting confused here.

Rich democrats don't live in houses exposed to "taking" and would likely benefit from the state sponsored development. Middle class and lower class blacks are at risk. This issue has legs. If the Reps. were able they could put a large and varied coalition together to stop the nonsense, and make the larger point against judicial overreach.

Poor neighborhoods adjoining downtown financial centers would be prime targets under this legislation. You could use the power of the law to forcibly gentrify these areas, giving developers a huge subsidy at the expense of the agency doing the condemnation and the homeowners who would not get the benefit of a sale at what their property would be worth after gentrification began.

As for the addle-pated Ms Pelosi, one can only hope that she is an indication that not only have the Democrats abandoned their labor base, but now are choosing to throw minorities to the wolves too, in a headlong chase after yuppie trendnoid metrosexuals.

40% party? 20% party? Try 5% party.

This is not a headlong chase after anything, it is simply blind reflex reaction. Pelosi is against it because the other side is for it. This is more evidence that the Democrats are rattled, that they have completely lost the initiative. As the pilots say, they are out of airspeed, altitude and ideas.

Lou:

Augering in next? Has a nice ring to it.

My guess is that Pelosi is afraid that this sort of Congressional action will somehow be a precedent on abortion or some other cause dear to her heart.

She's internalized the tyrannical doctrine of Judicial Supremacy over the other branches, the states and the people because it is the only way her agenda ever obtains. By her dim lights, Congress should take an oath to the Court, not the Constitution.