From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Federal Judge Lynn Winmill has a well-deserved reputation as an activist judge. Not too long ago, he trampled on the Boise Rescue Mission’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion by telling staff how to run their ministry even though the Mission does not receive so much as a nickel in taxpayer monies. Further, Winmill has struck down pro-life legislation seemingly out of force of habit. Yesterday, however, this federal judge blinked in a showdown with the Idaho Supreme Court.

Winmill rejected a lawsuit brought by some Idaho public schools against the Idaho Supreme Court, who wanted Winmill to order the Idaho Court to dictate a remedy in a school funding dispute. Winmill wrote what is for him an amazingly restrained opinion, saying, “Federal courts have no authority to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.”

The back-story here, I believe, is that the Idaho Supreme Court fully intended to ignore any ruling that Winmill handed down that would have directed it to do anything. Additionally, only two of the five justices who made the original ruling are still on the Court, so the reality is that the Court doesn’t have the quorum of three necessary to follow his dictates even if they were inclined to do so.

Further, the Idaho Supreme Court had dismissed the suit, meaning that from a legal standpoint there is no existing case for Winmill to rule on, which gave the Idaho Court another reason to simply ignore an order from him.

It looks as though Winmill was prescient enough to recognize that he wasn’t going to be able to order the Idaho Supremes around, and backed out of the case in a face-saving move. The reality is that, if the Idaho Supreme Court ignored his ruling, there’s not a thing he could have done about it. The separation of powers doctrine denies any enforcement power to the judiciary, so he had no one he could compel to enforce his ruling.

Kudos to the Idaho Supreme Court for refusing to be coerced or intimidated by the prospect of a federal judge unconstitutionally throwing his weight around. The reality is that, if federal judges intrude where they have no constitutional authority to be, there is nothing except the frayed good will of the states that prompts them to comply with such unauthorized rulings.

The Idaho Supreme Court has struck a blow for the 10th Amendment, state sovereignty and liberty all in one fell swoop, and perhaps shown the rest of the states in the Union the way forward to reclaim rights that are properly theirs under the federal Constitution. If more branches of Idaho state government start showing the moxie of the Idaho Supreme Court, happier and freer days may be ahead for all Idahoans.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

What strange times we live in. The Yale Daily News reported that a student at that once prestigious campus produced video recordings of self-induced abortions as part of her senior art project. The young woman claimed that she had repeatedly impregnated herself using donated sperm over the past year – so she could film numerous self-abortions in her bathtub using various herbal abortifacients.

Once she presented her video to the Senior Art Project Forum – revulsion spread across the campus, resulting in a newspaper story by the student paper. In an interview, Ms. Shvarts claimed that her “performance art” was designed to encourage debate about the relationship between art and the human body.

Campus officials decided to investigate and, when confronted, Aliza Shvarts claimed that it was all just an elaborate hoax.

Probably so. Yet the thinking and moral numbness behind this dark episode is obviously disturbing. How could an otherwise intelligent young woman show such disregard for the human destruction and suffering involved in abortion?

The truth is, such sociopathic behavior must be expected in a culture which denies the humanity of preborn children for the sake of convenience. Planned Parenthood’s propaganda campaign – in which human beings are just “blobs of tissue” – has taken hold.

Can the masters of the culture be so certain that they can keep the beast contained?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The President of BSU’s Faculty Senate, Dr. David Saunders, has just issued his Spring 2008 report, and it’s not encouraging if you are a parent looking for a quality and safe college education for your student.

To begin with, the Faculty Senate adopted two recommendations which will dilute the quality of education BSU offers, especially to its undergrads. The recommendations come in connection with the University’s move to become more of a research-centered school.

The first, dealing with “Faculty Tenure,” eliminates the policy “requiring evidence of outstanding performance in teaching” and weakens it to “meeting the college criteria,” whatever those are. Bottom line: BSU will now offer tenure to instructors who no longer have to demonstrate excellence in actually educating the students in their charge.

The second, dealing with “Faculty Promotion,” eliminates the policy that “teaching is the single most important role of faculty” at BSU and replaces that policy with one that says teaching merely plays “a critical role” in consideration for advancement. Bottom line: average-to-poor instructors will now be eligible for academic promotions at one of the state’s premiere institutions of higher education.

The Faculty Senate also took the time to declare that BSU must continue to be a gun-free zone, resolving unanimously that the “Administration is most vehemently urged” to oppose legislation that would permit adults with concealed weapons permits to carry on campus. Not just “urged,” you will note, but “vehemently urged.” And “using all resources available.”

Thus BSU’s faculty, in all its wisdom, has decided that only certain parts of the Constitution should be honored on campus. As with most on the left, the template among BSU faculty is simple: First Amendment, good (unless proponents of Intelligent Design try to use it), Second Amendment, bad.

Firearms are currently prohibited on the BSU campus, turning the student body into helpless shooting-gallery targets for the kind of deranged gunman who killed 32 students a Virginia Tech just a year ago. Guns, you will remember, were absolutely banned from the Virginia Tech campus, illustrating just how useless such bans are in preventing campus violence.

The “Resolution on SB 1381 - Concealed Weapons Law” says that “Faculty at Boise State University cannot be expected to academically evaluate students who carry weapons,” apparently afraid that the average student may demand a higher grade at gunpoint.

Nor can students “be expected to feel comfortable being instructed by Faculty if Faculty are in possession of firearms.” Apparently they worry that students will live in mortal fear that a professor will suddenly being firing at them randomly as they sit peacefully in his classroom.

Further, the resolution warns that allowing qualified students (concealed weapons permits are only issued to those over the age of 21) and professors to protect themselves will damage recruitment of both instructors and students. No, they wouldn’t want to be anywhere law-abiding citizens could defend themselves against violent attacks. Who would?

Visiting athletic teams, the resolution warns, may not want to play at BSU, apparently for fear they will be ambushed by gun-toting redneck students, and those who lecture on subjects “that are controversial in nature” may be intimidated into silence, in evident fear that a disgruntled student will blow them away if they say something the student happens to disagree with.

The reality is that the mere possibility that students or professors may in fact be in a position to defend themselves and others is the most powerful deterrent against homicidal behavior. (How many shootings take place in police stations?) Someone thinking about shooting the place up will simply have no idea who might be in a position to stop him in his tracks.

One of the questions on the Gem State Voter Guide will deal specifically with this issue, whether a candidate supports or opposes the right of adults with concealed carry permits to carry on Idaho’s college campuses.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

A poll commissioned by the prestigious Friedman Foundation and co-sponsored by the Idaho Values Alliance and Education Excellence Idaho found that only 12% of Idahoans would chose a “regular public school” if they had a full range of options.

Even more striking, this figure drops to just 4% among Idahoans age 36-55, who are the chief consumers of public education services in Idaho.

This is an astonishing number, because it tells us that the more Idaho’s parents use conventional public education, the less they like it. This is the most powerful argument possible for increasing school choice in the Gem State.

The survey revealed that 25% of Idahoans would, however, choose charter schools, which are public schools free from much of the bureaucratic red tape that hampers education reform in conventional public schools.

The favorability rating of charter schools number jumps to over 70% among the 36-55 demographic.

This tells us that we need to make it easier for charter schools to open in Idaho, and lift the cap on charter school expansion, which currently limits the number of charter school startups to no more than six per year.

The survey also reveals that 39% of Idahoans would choose private school options if that alternative was accessible to them. This is a compelling reason for the legislature to consider education tax credits, which would allow Idaho’s parents a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for the money they spend on private school tuition.

Education tax credits would make private school options more accessible to Idaho parents, and would cause genuine school choice to flourish.

Friedman/IVA Poll Results

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Representative Tom Loertscher

Because of our somewhat crowded conditions at the Legislature this year I had anticipated a mood meltdown to occur in the house much earlier. What happened this week was not necessarily as severe as a meltdown but it did signal a change of attitudes.

The Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee (JFAC) pretty much concluded its work by having set all of the agency budgets. Two of the big ones passed the House this week, Corrections and State Police. Both of these budgets are bare bones budgets this year with increases for salaries at three percent and the big one for the State Police is the increase in fuel costs.

A draft piece of legislation that came before State Affairs was one to place strong sanctions on employers if they hire employees that are not in this country legally. I happened to catch a local Boise radio talk show that was blasting the committee for not printing the proposal. There was reluctance by the committee to proceed because of some apparent conflicts it had with federal law. If the problems are fixed we may see that one again this year.

An emissions testing bill passed the House as well and the debate between Ada and Canyon County legislators was very intense. In Boise you see these little red emissions testing vans scattered all over place checking vehicle exhaust gasses, and the potential is to have these all over the state. The bill was brought forward as a compromise and exempts farm and industrial equipment, but any vehicle over five years old would be subject to removal from the road if it could not comply with standards set by DEQ. How old is the car you drive?

The Revenue and Taxation Committee has been working long this week with several bills coming to the floor for debate. The one of most interest to the folks at home was the increase in the grocery tax credit that moves to $50 per person for taxable incomes of $1000 or less and $30 per person for the rest. Then the credit goes up by $10 per year until it reaches $100. It passed the full House easily. The debate is still alive to remove the food sales tax altogether but does not have the support of the Governor to move forward this year.

As quickly as the Governor had proposed vehicle registration fees be increased to $150, by mid week he had withdrawn the idea. He went on to blame the Legislature for its failure but as one of my colleagues remarked it was likely that he was getting the same phone calls we were. Others are still working on some increases so stay tuned and hold on to your wallets.

JFAC having set the budgets signals about another two weeks to go, but that only if all goes well. Still there are a number of things yet to be resolved among them, aquifer recharge, personal property tax, secure mental health facility, and election reform just to name a few. And if there should be some vetoes long the way, it could be more than the outside temperature that will go up.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Originally posted March 3, 2007

It’s that special time of year again - Idaho Public TV (IdahoPTV) is inflicting the state with “Festival 2007″ [now "Festival 2008"] and asking you to dig deep to support their unequaled programming.

Let’s see - the federal government supported the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) to the tune of more than $400,000,000 in 2006. That would be $400 million of your tax dollars. (Cuts in future budgets have been proposed, but failed, due to tireless lobbying by PBS-inflamed viewers.)

The State of Idaho also gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to Idaho Public Television, an affiliate of PBS. That would be hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars.

And it’s called “public” television, supposedly free from the commercialism the for-profit stations inundate us with. And yet at the beginning or end (or both) of nearly every program, I am treated to a not-for-profit commercial. That sounds like an oxymoron because it is.

Will I call in a pledge during “Festival 2007″? Not necessary. I’ve already given twice, involuntarily, whether I watch a single minute of IdahoPTV or not. In fact, if I don’t contribute, through non-payment of taxes, I could go to jail.

I think I’ll call my current level of support good enough.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The racist bigotry recently exposed at Boise’s Planned Parenthood has its roots in the long and unsavory past of this organization.

According to African-American Clenard Childress, founder of BlackGenocide.org, Planned Parenthood, under the aegis of its founder, Margaret Sanger, launched what was called “The Negro Project” in 1939. This project was designed to control the birth of “human weeds,” Sanger’s colorful term for black people.

To assist in promoting abortion, sterilization and birth control among blacks, Margaret Sanger wrote the following to a friend in the eugenics movement:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (emphasis added)

It would be hard to exaggerate the attitude of white supremacy and patronizing condescension found in those words. Yet Planned Parenthood continues to name its highest annual award after this woman.

Said Sen. Barack Obama last July to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country - and for men who have enough sense to realize you are helping them.” (How is Planned Parenthood “helping” men? By getting rid of promiscuously fathered children? By helping them conceal sex crimes against underage girls? What?)

Obama is either ignorant of the fact that 79% of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in minority communities, and that almost half of unborn black babies are aborted, or doesn’t care. Blacks today represent a smaller percentage of our population than they did immediately after the Civil War.

This puts Obama far from the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr., who in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail referred to the historic reality that “the early church put an end to such evils as infanticide.” What Rev. King refers to as an evil, Sen. Obama refers to as a constitutional right.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

In the last few weeks, the local media have delighted at covering news of Democrat caucuses around the state. Unusual enthusiasm and energy were reported, with an outpouring of support for candidate Barak Obama, who visited the state capitol of Boise to adulation from an overflow crowd.

A story broadcast by the local ABC affiliate, seen on Local News 8, revealed details about the tactics of the Democrat party, as well as public school teachers.

(As a side note, one is forced to ask if the illiteracy displayed in the written story is attributable to the author, reporterette Bridget Shanahan [most likely] or the teens and teacher who are quoted. But that is neither here nor there, I suppose.)

Bingham County has selected five teens, a high school teacher, and a couple of others, to attend the June Democrat caucus in Boise. The teens were thrilled. According to the broadcast story, several students didn’t even know they were Democrats! Apparently the high school government teacher helped them sort out their identity:

“We will change the world one high school student at a time…”, said Mrs. Kartchner, in a stunning admission of her political influence over an impressionable student in her class.

Rarely has such a revelation of Democrat methods been seen. A teenage girl “didn’t even know she was a Democrat”, and a public school teacher (who apparently knew her own party affiliation) stepped up to help her student clarify her political identity.

To further illustrate the depth of understanding of these young and newly awakened political activists, consider this statement:

“It’s not necessarily a vote that counts it’s the person that counts. I think and people actually standing up and saying what they believe and fighting for what they believe,” Sally Ames said [punctuation preserved from original story].

Try telling that to Hillary Clinton, as she struggles to stay in the primary race with Barack Obama.

One can conclude from this statement that 1) every person she passes in the halls on the way to government class - even that poor girl wearing K-Mart shoes - is special, and 2) armed conflict over a difference of opinion is justified. (I wonder if that was the message Mrs. Kartchner intended.)

I suppose this story (and its over-the-top reporting) should come as no surprise, given the enthusiastic but completely vacant message of “hope” and “change” being delivered by the party’s front runner, Obama.

Democrats reading this story are sure to feel they “count”, whether or not they have a vote in the completely closed Idaho Democrat primary process. And they will feel ready to “fight for what they believe”, no doubt.

Republicans and conservatives, on the other hand, will have a strange sinking feeling, similar to that felt by a ship’s captain as he watches an unthinking and senseless rogue wave bearing down on his vessel.

As long as emotion, complete disregard for reality (and grammar), and the politics of personality vie with logic, fact-based decision making and constitutional principle, our liberty and our very way of life will be in jeopardy.

And, by the way, stories such as this should raise the question of returning the voting age to 21, and the repeal of women’s suffrage.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Representative Tom Loertscher

It took some time this year to accumulate bills on our third reading
calendar in the House. Now however, there is no shortage of legislation
to be considered on the floor. And then there are the proposals that
seem to slow us down with a lot of debate.

Debate of the issues is a good thing and it is interesting to hear some
of the points that are stressed by the two opposing sides. One bill this
week was another one of those “automatic pilot” bills that would
have taken funds directly to a program without the normal appropriations
process. Whenever that happens the members of the Appropriations
Committee get to their feet and give all of the reasons why that is not
a good idea. It seems to me that budget setting needs to be more than
just a formality, I voted no.

It was brought to my attention that every House committee has a
statutory mandate to review performance measures of the agencies they
oversee. There are ten of them for which the State Affairs Committee is
responsible. I have never been one to think that these presentations
have much value but that has changed with a change in focus from what
the agencies do, to how well they are doing it.

One of particular interest this week was the Lottery Commission. Part
of their mission statement is to promote responsible playing of the
lottery. What catches your ears in these discussions is how much effort
they make to increase sales. The mixed message then becomes, don’t
overdo it, just buy more tickets, two very different sides of the same
coin. The lottery is sending about seventeen million dollars to schools
this year and an equal amount to state buildings. It only took about one
hundred forty million dollars of gambling to get there.

School boards were in town and we had a chance to meet with several of
them briefly. As with most folks who approach legislators, they have a
list of items outlining their concerns. Funding was not the top issue
for them. First on the list was the election consolidation legislation
that is about to be introduced. No discussion with educators would be
complete these days without a discussion of ISTARS, Superintendent Tom
Luna’s proposal for teacher compensation.

With the Governor lowering the current fiscal year revenue projection
to two percent, more alarm bells went off than at a school fire drill.
As I visit with colleagues, the most frequent worry expressed is not
wanting ever to have a repeat of what happened in 2001 through 2003.

With all of the agency budget hearings now complete, JFAC is about to
begin setting the budget for fiscal 2009. And as tradition would have it
we are about in the middle of the session, theoretically. The first set
of pages is about to head back to the classroom, budget setting begins,
and our calendars are full. But it’s not time to relax yet.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

A blatantly activist ruling issued by federal judge Lynn Winmill may provide an intriguing opportunity for Idaho to take the national lead in breaking the chokehold an overstepping federal judiciary has had for decades on state affairs and state sovereignty.

Judge Winmill issued a preliminary finding last Thursday on a lawsuit first launched in 1990 that deals with state funding for public school buildings.

Winmill erred in a significant number of ways. First, the federal constitution gives Judge Winmill no legal authority even to accept such a case. Appellate jurisdiction over state supreme court decisions is awarded only to the United States Supreme Court, meaning that a lower federal court has no constitutional authority even to accept this case.

Idaho should ignore Winmill simply on the grounds that to accept his jurisdiction over this case is to be complicit with him in violating the federal constitution, which all judges take an oath to uphold. In fact, the only way our state supreme court justices could respond to an order from Winmill would be to violate their own sacred oath to uphold the federal constitution.

If the plaintiffs want to appeal the state supreme court decision, their exclusive constitutional remedy is a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s likely that the plaintiffs instead chose to put their case before Judge Winmill for the straightforward reason that he has a well-deserved reputation as an activist judge. He’s the judge who told the Boise Rescue Mission, for example, how to run its ministry, arrogantly trampling on its constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion. Winmill, plaintiffs figured, could be persuaded to ignore the federal constitution and give them the ruling they were looking for.

Plus, they know that the U.S. Supreme Court would be highly unlikely to accept their appeal, meaning their only hope was to find a federal judge with a reputation for ignoring constitutional principles and a willingness to legislate from the bench. They appear to have found their man in Judge Winmill.

Further, the lawsuit, rather than naming the Idaho Supreme Court as an entity, named the five individuals who were sitting on the Supreme Court panel that issued the 2005 ruling dismissing this case. But one of those justices has retired, and two others were only serving temporarily on the court since two justices recused themselves, having ruled on the same lawsuit previously at the district court level.

Judge Winmill said in his statement the only thing that could make the suit go away is if the current Supreme Court orders some kind of state remedy for the funding dispute. But the Supreme Court dismissed this case in 2005, meaning that from a legal standpoint, it no longer has any kind of legal existence. It’s over, the lawsuit brought to a terminal end. A federal judge who has no legal authority to rule in the first place cannot simply order a case to be “undismissed.”

Lastly, there is no one even to do what this federal judge might order to be done. It takes three state supreme court justices to make a decision, and there are only two justices left whom Winmill could order around even if he had the right to do so. The other three current justices are not even named in the lawsuit, meaning whatever Winmill does in the end legally doesn’t even apply to them. They would have no responsibility, legal authority, or legal right to enforce Winmill’s order.

Thus we are faced with the delicious prospect of a state supreme court simply ignoring an arrogant and over-reaching federal judge, striking a blow for judicial restraint and state sovereignty in one fell swoop.

What can Winmill do? His only option would appear to be to throw some kind of temper tantrum, and even that would be fun to watch.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.