Just looking Out For God

My new favorite idiot is in the news again, and he isn’t taking the Supreme Court decisions well:

A deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that it’s OK for the government to display the Ten Commandments if the intent is secular, but it is unconstitutional if the monument’s purpose is solely religious.

Many in Congress are troubled by the decision and intend to do something about it. One of them is Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., who said the “unconstitutional decisions” by the high court do not have to be tolerated by either Congress or the White House.

“Congress can remove funds for the enforcement of this unconstitutional ruling,” he said. “And the president, in his executive prerogative, exercising his executive prerogative, can, as we say, just say no to the court.”

Hostettler added that a constitutional amendment is not the best route, though, because the Constitution is not the problem.

“The clear wording of the Constitution is in no way violated by what is going on in McCreary County, Kentucky, or Texas,” he said, referring to the locations of the two Commandments displays ruled on by the Supreme Court on Monday. “Congress does not need to suggest a deficiency in the Constitution by suggesting an amendment.

Because, as we all know, no one is prepared to determine matters of Consitutionality like a wingnut from the Corn Belt. Not even the Supreme Court. They don’t understand that we must display the Ten Commandments everywhere, because God would want it that way. Otherwise I might start lusting for my neighbor’s wife, begin thieving from convenience sotres, or, poray tell, I might turn the dismissive and disrespectful attitude I have towards Hostettler and his ilk and aim it at my elders.

Unfortunately, there was no immediate word on why God wouldn’t like an amendment to the Constitution.

*** Update ***

And then there is this:

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.

Ugh. Dear Ms. Pelosi- you can have your own thooughts irrespective of Supreme Court decisions. Blind fealty and total subservience is not expected nor wanted.