[Vision2020] Bad News: Idaho appeals 'ag-gag' ruling to 9th Circuit

Saundra Lund v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
Sat Dec 12 17:55:34 PST 2015


That’s a good article – thanks for sharing it, Ron.

 

I was also thinking about the taxpayer costs for Idaho taking such untenable stands to begin with.  I suppose you’re right that gives the pols crowing rights, but it also makes the AG’s office less able/available to do what they really need to do.  In the case of the Ag-Gag law, Otter never should have signed the unconstitutional law . . . and the legislators behind it never should have spent taxpayer money to pass a law that was so clearly unconstitutional.  

 

That was completely fiscally irresponsible for the taxpayers, although I’m sure the GOP/TPer reprobates lined their campaign coffers nicely by doing the unconstitutional bidding of the IFB and IDA.

 

It’s pretty embarrassing to live in a state where the GOP/TPer legislators and governor think it’s the filming of the sexual and physical abuse of animals that’s the problem rather than the behavior itself  :(

 

This is yet another reason it would be a good idea for Idaho legislators to prove their ability to pass the ISAT at the level required to graduate from high school.

 

 

 

Saundra

 

From: Ron Force [mailto:ronforce at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 3:00 PM
To: Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bad News: Idaho appeals 'ag-gag' ruling to 9th Circuit

 

Well, yes, it lost  them all except for the suit in 1996 from Phil Batt under which the Fed agreed to remove nuclear waste from Idaho (which was sort of a loss, since the Fed hasn't done what they agreed to do). It's all good. The fund has been used to pay big awards to the attorneys on the winning side, like Planned Parenthood. On one hand, the pols can crow to their supporters that they're standing up for the principles they were elected to defend; On the other hand, their supporters don't realize that the Constitutional Defense Fund is really funding their opponents, by losing and having to pay their attorneys' fees. 

 

Here's the list of losses; http://www.dailyastorian.com/glance-cases-paid-from-idahos-constitutional-defense-fund-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest7eab5cd3ae714d6788e0d3e30ceda808




Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA

 

On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> > wrote:

More fiscal irresponsibility from Idaho’s GOP & TPers . . . I could be mistaken, but hasn’t Idaho been on the losing end of every Constitutional challenge its brought in the last two or three decades???  It’s a special kind of stupid to keep wasting taxpayer money this way.

 

 

Saundra Lund

Moscow, ID

 

We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. 
~ Immanuel Kant

 

 

Idaho appeals 'ag-gag' ruling to 9th Circuit <http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2015/dec/11/idaho-appeals-ag-gag-ruling-9th-circuit/> 

Betsy Z. Russell

 

FRIDAY, DEC. 11, 2015, 2:33 P.M.

 

The state of Idaho has filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit of the U.S. District Court decision overturning the state’s “ag-gag law,” the law passed by the state Legislature making it a crime to surreptitiously videotape agricultural operations. Idaho lawmakers approved the law in 2014 after the state’s $2.5 billion dairy industry complained that videos of cows being abused at a southern Idaho dairy filmed in 2012 unfairly hurt their business. The Los Angeles-based animal rights group Mercy For Animals released the videos, which showed workers at Bettencourt Dairy beating, stomping and otherwise abusing cows in 2012.

The court invalidated the law in August, holding that it violated First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was the first federal court ruling on an “ag-gag” law; eight states have passed them. Last week, the groups that filed the lawsuit, led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, filed a motion with the court asking that the state pay more than $250,000 to cover their attorney fees and costs.

Todd Dvorak, spokesman for Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, said the office had no comment today on the notice of appeal, which was filed late yesterday.

Ag groups including the Idaho Farm Bureau and Idaho Dairymen’s Association had been urging the state to appeal the ruling, according to the  <http://www.capitalpress.com/Idaho> Capital Press, an ag newspaper.

In the August ruling, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill found that the law’s “primary purpose is to protect agricultural facility owners by, in effect, suppressing speech critical of animal-agriculture practices.” He ruled that evidence indicated the law was “intended to silence animal welfare activists, or other whistleblowers who seek to publish speech critical of the agricultural production industry.”

 


=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> 
=======================================================

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20151212/eecb631b/attachment.html>


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list