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.

And how about letting a Wiccan Priestess do the opening invocation at the Boise City council meeting once in a while? Fair is fair….

EDITOR NOTE– Councilor Shealy keeps his eyes open and scans the room during prayer. It bugs at least one other member that he does so. Only those who peek–or watch reruns on TV are aware.

I was perfectly happy with the monument right where it was. (If it had been a Star of David, or an Islamic crescent moon, or a flaming goat-skull… that would have been fine, too. I believe I could have used my God-given brain to conclude, “This monument doesn’t represent everyone’s beliefs, but it’s been here for a long time, and some of my fellow citizens enjoy it, and I can tolerate it. Peace, brother.”)

If it had come up for a vote BEFORE Team Dave’ jack-booted thugs moved it, I would have voted to leave it in its place. (Unlike some, I don’t believe the founding fathers’ intent with the First Amendment was to stifle any public affirmation of religious belief, but rather to prohibit a “state religion,” as was prevalent in so many European countries at the time.)

Now that the monument has been relocated (a shame)… I’m fine with that, too. And assuming I’m allowed to vote, I’ll almost certainly vote to leave it where it is. (As a believer, I believe contention is NOT of God, and He’d just as soon we leave the hatchet buried now. Likely Brandi sees things differently.)

I’m curious to see if the divisive “monument election” will be held on designated Election Day in November (why not?), or if the city will hold a special election, at a cost of $40,000 or so, a week earlier or later. (Or maybe follow in the footsteps of the Eagle fire-department people, and hold a “secret election” on Election Day, publicized by word-of-mouth at hush-hush Coalition socials.)

EDITOR NOTE–Have faith!

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.