Author, you completely ignore Justice Trout’s dissent. She recognizes that if the petition does not meet the requirements for an initiative, it can’t go on the ballot. Simple as that, the hurdle was not crossed by the coalition. If I were Boise City, I would spend even more money on a 9th Circuit review of the obsurd, cowardly 4 and 1/2 page opinion from the court.

Excellent! Brandi is prolly polishing up them big hoop earrings at this very moment!

For the record, I believe the city was cowardly in kowtowing to Topeka hate-preacher Fred Phelps. (It should be noted that Nampa and Caldwell both told him to “take a hike” when he made similar overtures concerning THEIR monuments, which remain in their original, municipally-owned spots, apparently not causing grief for anybody, even the non-believers.)

EDITOR NOTE–Good points. We are probably ambivolent about the issue, but if they got the signitures they get on the ballot.

The voters SHOULD decide this!

The voters SHOULD decide this!

I can’t imagine the poor legal representation that resulted in this ruling. I am afraid I am with Crim445 on this one. I hope they appeal it to the 9th Circuit.

While I understand that this should have been put to a vote, I must ask – when DeMille’s PR folks presented the item in question to The City of Boise, was it accepted just because it was the polite thing to do or did the public really want it? I know that this bit of historical questioning has nothing to do with today’s issue, but really, does the Parks Department HAVE to accept every gift and put it out onto public land without risking a law suit? If so, this could get out of hand!
Right on bikeboy!

I told you all on this board… If we all would have voted for Brandi this would have never happened!

AAAARRRRGGGGHHH. I leave town for the wilderness for a few days and this is the mess I find. So many issues and not in the order of importance. First, there is no appeal to the ninth circuit from the Idaho Supreme Court. The appeal would go directly to the US Supreme Court. But since this is addressing an interpretation of the Idaho Constitution it is highly unlikely the Court would grant the appeal and meddle in what is an Idaho issue.

Second, the majority opinion overruled three established Idaho cases to come to the conclusion it did. This is a highly activist decision for a very conservative cause. Justice Trout’s more reserved analysis recognized Idaho’s existing caselaw as well as the peruasive authority from neighboring jursdictions. There was simply no cogent legal reason for the Court to go the direction it did. This is purely an issue of procedure and does nothing to clarify existing law.

Third, and most importantly, way too many of you seem to think that a vote will be the panacea to the issue. Yes only if its voted down. The bill of rights was designed to protect all individuals from their government. Our founding fathers rebelled against a tyranical government and sought to protect its citizens from similar abuses that could be perpetrated by the democratic government they were creating. So they made certain liberties and freedoms absolute to the citizens of the government they created. One of those freedoms is that the Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion. My point is that these feedoms are inviolate, they cannot be removed due to the whims of a majority of the populace. In their infinite wisdom the drafters of the Constitution protected the citizens from the tyranny of the majority, whether that majority be Sikh, Shinto, Jew, Muslim or Christian.

We should recognize that government should play no role in the very devisive issues religion can raise, whether its by the Phelps of the world or the Swindells. I think we should all honor the beauty of what the drafters have provided us and leave the religious issues in the respective houses of worship where they belong. But don’t push your religion on my government and definitely don’t throw the issue to the whims of the thirty percent of us who might deign to vote next time.

The Council and the district judge did us a favor by focusing local government on more important issues like managing growth. And back off the Mayor on this one. He didn’t participate in the vote, the Council did this. Now we have a divisive wedge issue to vote on that will most assuredly result in further court challenges and waste more of our taxpayer money. And the Supreme Court went way out of its way to get there. I’m disgusted.

EDITOR NOTE–Sis, you shouldn’t have left town! In defense of the Supremes, they say they felt it inappropriate to “interrupt the legislative process.” In short, it wasn’t up to Bieter (his legal department) to come up with a way to keep the 10,000 petioners off the ballot. Once it is passed by a vote, only then is it RIPE for adjudication. NO ONE has the right to pass an unconstitutional law, even Christians. Conversely the City has no right to short circuit the process. Your turn.

Yeah Guardian but they’re wrong. As Justice Trout points out: “That issue is ripe because there is a controversy today as to whether the proposed act is legislative or administrative and there is a present need for adjudication to make that determination before the City is required to fund an expensive election.” The question of whether the proposed initiative is administrative or legislative should not await the outcome of the election. That’s ridiculous. What more information will be available to the Court after the election to enable them to more fully evaluate that question? The sole basis for the majority opinion is that the measure may be defeated rendering its determination on the issue moot.

When ten thousand people do a stupid thing, it is still, in the end, a stupid thing. This ruling undermines the concept of representative democracy, having trained professionals elected by the citizens and who are paid to become informed thoroughly on issues and render decisions accordingly. There is a democratic check ensconced in the system, voting the councilmembers out for bad judgment. I’d rather take my chances on the pros than toss it to a shrinking electorate who are motivated to vote only on that single issue or whose desision is based solely on a thirty second sound bite. I disagree with the Court and find little justifiable reason to encumber the process by adding this tool in order to satisfy the political ambitions of a few narrow minded “malcontents”.

Your turn.

EDITOR NOTE–Sis, it boils down to our differing opinion of “trained professionals” elected to office.

Yeah Guardian, when are you going to become one so the voters can pester you all day. If I had the confidence that someone as well informed as you was to make up the electorate on the issue I’d feel better about the initiative process. But the law used to state that where the Council has weighed in on the issue, the voters’ beef is with the Council. Now good and bad Christian voters will be guilted into voting in a bad law by a well funded, motivated and vocal minority.

EDITOR NOTE–Have faith!

Yes of interest– There have been several controversies since Mayor Bieter took office! Probably half of them involve him trying to go around the voters. Now we know why the city employs , I heard about, 40+ lawyers..Is this true??

Is this decision an example of the activist judges that Bryan Fischer and Keep the Commandments Coalition have been warning us about?

Sisyphus:

You’re wrong about everything except for the fact that there’s no direct appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Justices did not engage in activism by striking down the three previous cases. Those decisions were pure judicial activism, and the current court has restored the balance by overturning them. Gumprecht and Weldon were activist for the following reasons: There is no law that allows for a city or county to make determinations as to the validity of any proposed initiative; there is no law that allows the court to remove a qualified initiative from the ballot, even an invalid or “administrative” one; and the issue of whether a ministerial officer could frustrate the initiative process by refusing to perform his duties on the grounds that the proposed initiative was outside the “scope” of the process was settled in 1935 in the case of Girard v. Miller.

I could go on and on. The fact is that this recent decision by the Court is one of the most courageous, bold, and powerful initiative rulings in this state since Associated Taxpayers v. cenarrusa in 1986.

The Justices have restored power to the people at the local level, which is a heroic thing for any politician to do. They have bucked the trend set by other courts. Few people will understand the significance of this.