Free Markets, Free People

Quote Of The Day: Queen Nancy’s Logic Edition

Nancy Pelosi, not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, explains why the 60 vote majority in the Senate is “unconstitutional”:

“A constitutional majority is 51 votes,” Pelosi said in an interview Tuesday with Roll Call. “If in fact the Republicans are going to say nothing can be done except by 60 percent, then maybe we all should be elected with 60 percent. It isn’t legitimate in terms of passing legislation.”

Conveniently missing in this romp through the illogical is the fact that a “majority” in the Senate is whatever the Senate rules say it is – and that’s a power left to them by the Constitution. In fact, to change this rule, the Senate requires 67 votes or a 2/3rds majority. I assume Ms. Pelosi would find that “unconstitutional” as well.  Just another, albeit a fairly pathetic one, in an increasing number of assaults on the filibuster by Democrats who understand that they either have to actually be bi-partisan now or change the rules.

Guess which they opt for?

Isn’t also ironic when “Justice” Pelosi cites the Constitution incorrectly as a means to push a blatantly unconstitutional health care bill through?

Anyway, remember to wish long lives and good health to Barack Obama and Joe Biden. As bad as they are, Pelosi being 3 heartbeats away from the Oval Office necessitates those good wishes.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

8 Responses to Quote Of The Day: Queen Nancy’s Logic Edition

  • Man, given the libs’ penchant for citing the Constitution as their ultimate argument*, they really don’t have much of a clue what’s actually in it, do they?

    It would be interesting to see the Senate leadership not-so-politely inform SanFran Nan that the rules of the Senate are set constitutionally^ by the members of the Senate, and that they aren’t especially interested in what she (or anybody else who isn’t a Senator) has to say about them.
    Or perhaps the rest of us can start claiming that the House’s rules under which the Speaker and various committee chairmen can pretty much kill any bill they don’t like is also “unconstitutional”.

    —–

    (*) At least it’s a step up from laying on the floor, screaming and beating their fists or holding their breath.

    (^) Art. I, sec. 5.  Unlike SanFran Nan, I do sort-of know what is in the Constitution.

  • The excruciating dim-wittedness of Pelosi always leaves me gasping in disbelief.

    There’s no learning curve with these people. They can’t think, and they prefer it that way. Why think when you have power? There’s no time, or use, for clear thought, including having a clue about how the government you’re partly in charge of operates.

    Yesterday I heard Niall Ferguson — I’m not a big fan, but he’s a provocative thinker — talking about how collapse and disintegration can just sneak right up on a society. He cited how the Soviet Union fell apart virtually overnight (and it wasn’t the first time that something like that happened in the 20th Century). What’s happening here is vitally different from what happened to the USSR, but when you listen to someone like Pelosi, who is one of the heads of government and who seems to exist in a glass case of unreality, you’ve got to wonder how far we have pushed it.

    These people talk like 1948 Progressive Party socialists ready to distribute advantages to the greatest number of people to the disadvantage of all and reality never intrudes on them.

    Revolting.

  • Pelosi has no idea what the Constitution actually says, and she’s a moron for bringing it up.  Here’s a clue, Nancy:  Most of what the Federal Government is doing is unconstitutional and reserved to the states. 

     

  • Shudder.  I can’t for the life of me imagine Pelosi as Commander in Chief.

  • Just think…..She’s next in line after Biden……….BWAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!
     
    Now, try to go to sleep.

  • Pelosi is all about temporary advantage.  I the early days of the Bush Presidency, the argument was offered that “advise and consent” on judicial nominations was a Constitutionally mandated function and hence should not be subject to the filibuster.  The idea was to introduce a point of order and uphold the chair on a majority vote to invalidate the filibuster on judicial nominations.  This was called the nuclear option.  Sixteen or so Senators from both parties got together and agree not to let this happen.
     
    It is hard to see how Pelosi would have been in favor of the nuclear option when the Republican’s were in control.  It is also hard to see how Pelosi would fight against the filibuster if the Republican’s were in control.  It seems Pelosi is in favor of abandoning the filibuster while the Democrats are in control, but reinstating it when the Republicans take control.
     
    It may come as a surprise to find Pelosi is a hypocrite.  Sure, it is a surprise.