Friday June 29, 2007
Bryan Fischer, Executive Director, Boise Idaho Values Alliance
Great News For Idaho Judiciay: Eismann New Chief Justice

Boise, ID - In a piece of very good news for those of us who believe in judicial restraint, the rule of law, and originalist judges, Dan Eismann has been selected by his fellow justices to be the new Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court.

Eismann has proven to be a judge who respects the original intent of the framers of the Idaho State Constitution and the legislative intent of laws passed by the state legislature, and will be a force for judicial responsibility on our state's highest court.

The Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court also heads up the Idaho Judicial Council (IJC), the unelected committee that screens applicants for the high court when a justice retires before his term is up. Justice Eismann will assume leadership of the IJC on August 1, well before the IJC conducts interviews for Justice Trout's replacement.

This raises the possibility that the interview process this time around may actually involve quizzing candidates regarding the judicial philosophy they would bring to the bench, a dynamic that was virtually absent in the interview process that led to Warren Jones appointment to replace retiring Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder.

Although Mr. Jones may make a fine justice, the public has no way of knowing that since we know next to nothing about whether he thinks of our state constitution as a living document whose interpretation must change along with changes in culture, or whether he regards its meaning as fixed and something to be followed as mariners navigate by the North Star.

Justice Eismann will be one of only two members of the Idaho Supreme Court to gain his position on the bench by being elected to it, as the constitution directs. The other three - 60% of the Supreme Court - will have initially reached the bench through appointment rather than election.

With Chief Justice Eismann in charge of the interview process this time around, we hope to know more about the kind of justice the next appointee will make.

The IVA is preparing a fresh edition of our "Citizen Information" questionnaire, and it will be sent to each applicant for Justice Trout's position. The deadline for applications for her position is July 2.

---

Monday, June 11, 2007
Bryan Fischer, Executive Director, Boise Idaho Values Alliance
9th Circuit Issues Blatantly Unconstitutional Ruling Re: Rescue Mission

Boise, ID - In another example of an activist judiciary out of control, late last week a three judge panel on the notorious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Boise Rescue Mission (BRM) cannot offer religious services of any kind at all, even if they are strictly voluntary.

The judges, of course, should know better, since the First Amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. It’s hard to imagine a more egregious abridgement of that right than making it illegal for people to worship even if they want to.

The ruling bases this blatantly unconstitutional ruling on the fact that a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment has occurred since the city once owned the property the Rescue Mission first leased and then purchased.

Although I am not an attorney, the ruling also appears to prohibit any appeal on the part of the City or the BRM to the full 9th Circuit.

The ruling, by the way, shows no awareness that the BRM now actually owns the property in question, the former Community House, nor that it has sold its former property to a developer.

Since the BRM now owns the building, BRM staff can of course do anything they want to when it comes to offering religious services. But the 9th Circuit seems intent on refusing to let the Constitution, history, the law, the facts or private property rights interfere with its agenda to secularize Americans against their will.

As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has often observed, a violation of the establishment clause at minimum must involve some kind of coercion. But no one compelled the city to sell the property to the Rescue Mission, no one compels people to go to the Rescue Mission if they don’t want to, and once they get there, no one compels them to attend chapel services.

Further, the ruling orders the Rescue Mission to move women and children back into the shelter, regardless of the fact that such a move would compromise their safety. The BRM bases this protective policy on decades of experience, which the Court arrogantly dismisses despite the likelihood that not one of the judges who issued this ruling has ever spent one day in a shelter setting trying to help shattered women and children.

One irony in this situation is the city of Boise is the defendant in this case, not the BRM. Thus the city, after showing no regard for religious liberty at all in the dispute over the Ten Commandments monument in Julia Davis Park, is now forced to use its three dozen full-time attorneys and its $400 million budget to defend religious liberty instead of attacking it.

The last chapter in this sorry saga has yet to be written, but the time may soon come for the pro-faith community to stand publicly and visibly and vocally with our friends at the Boise Rescue Mission as they do the work of Christ among the neediest among us. The BRM intends to go right on offering voluntary religious services to all its guests.

For more information, click on the following links: 9th Circuit says Boise Rescue Mission must allow women, kids | Idaho Statesman
Ninth Circuit Ruling: Community House v. City of Boise

---

May 3, 2007

Hate Crimes Bill Places Unequal Value On Human Lives, Could Criminalize Innocent Religious Comment
By Wayne Hoffman, Nampa

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Bill Sali today voted against a bill that would arbitrarily make some lives more valuable than others, and would potentially criminalize basic, innocent religious comment.

Sali voted against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, saying the legislation would potentially make particularly heinous crimes subject to lesser penalties simply because the victim belonged to a particular racial, religious or sexual orientation group. The bill, HR 1592, passed 237-180.

Sali explained, "Almost exactly two years ago, a killer committed a totally random, heinous crime in northern Idaho. A vile, diabolical murderer took the lives of two adults and a child, and violently tore a little girl from her home and family. Under this bill, that crime would be deemed by the government to be less important than a crime involving a minority. That's a heart-wrenching, horrible distinction to make about crimes involving innocent human beings."

"All decent people recoil at instances of racially-focused violence. Yet a crime against a person because he is of Asian heritage is no more odious than a crime against a person of any other race," said Sali.

Sali also pointed out that the legislation could criminalize innocent religious comments, even if the comments are part of a religion's teaching.

"If a church leader were to quote Scripture stating that homosexuality is immoral, he could be liable for a parishioner who misconstrues the message and carries out even a very minor offense," Sali said. "The basic concepts of free religious expression and traditional morality would be put under a gag order out of fear of liability that has never existed before and is triggered at an extremely low level. Our churches, our children and our communities all stand to lose under this misguided legislation."

For more information, view Congressman Sali’s web site at: www.sali.house.gov