Overhauls of 'heritage brands' raise the question: How important are our products to our identities?
Freedom of the press ‘on the slide’ in CyprusFriday essay: Ukraine is the world’s most heavily mined country. Meet some of the people cleaning up this deadly mess
DK Metcalf is happy to block as Seahawks ride streak into Sunday night matchup with PackersJones When I learned of Dan Chadwick’s handling of a truancy case in Payette County, not long after I took office as attorney general in 1983, I was greatly impressed. The case produced headlines across the country. Dan was a deputy county prosecutor at the time, and he resolved the case by exercising a firm but reasonable approach. I decided he would be just the person to act as legal counsel to Jerry Evans, who was then the state school superintendent. Dan excelled in that job, which was just part of his record of distinguished public service, right up until he passed away this year on April 23. In 1985, I tapped Dan to serve as chief of my Intergovernmental Affairs Division. For the next five years, Dan and his staff provided legal advice to practically every unit of local government throughout the state, as well as a large collection of independent state agencies and commissions. He listened to the concerns of elected and appointed officials of every political persuasion and helped them stay in compliance with the law. His advice likely saved hundreds of thousands of tax dollars over those years. His reputation as a highly competent attorney and administrator resulted in his selection in 1991 as executive director and general counsel of the Idaho Association of Counties, a position he held for 27 years until his retirement in 2018. Dan was not a showboat who generated headlines, but he was well known as a go-to problem-solver among officials at all levels of government in Idaho. He was a trusted spokesman for county officials on so many issues, including opposition to unfunded mandates, advocating for state funding of county public defenders and improving county policies and practices for risk management, juvenile corrections, property taxes, substance abuse and mental health. It is no easy feat to work effectively with 132 headstrong county commissioners and over 260 other elected county officials for such an extended period of time and still be respected by the great majority of them. Dan pulled it off by actually listening to concerns and then working hard to find a solution. Former IAC President, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, was right on point in saying: "Dan's retirement brings us to the end of an era that cannot be equaled. His contributions have been immeasurable." The former IAC President, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, was right on point in saying “Dan’s retirement brings us to the end of an era that cannot be equaled. His contributions have been immeasurable.” Dan was also known and respected by his peers in the National Association of Counties. When word of his passing spread, tributes from NACO members and officials came in from across the country. A number attended Dan’s memorial service to show their respect for their friend and former associate. Paul Beddoe, a NACO legislative affairs director, was quoted in a Chadwick tribute in NACO’s May publication: “He taught me that in lobbying, you never make a permanent friend, and you never make a permanent enemy. You have to treat people with respect and if you just have a disagreement or a tough conversation, don’t take it personally. You can come back and work together on something with those folks on another issue.” That certainly epitomized Dan’s approach. Last year, Dan told me that he was a firm believer in Thomas Jefferson’s saying: “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Dan said those in local government positions “use common sense to take care of problems,” while state legislators often choose to “micromanage local affairs and impose one-size-fits-all, statewide solutions for every perceived problem.” Amen. Although he did not often talk about it, likely because of security concerns, Dan served as a linguist in the U.S. Air Force during the Cold War, learning Serbo-Croatian and working with the National Security Agency and intelligence community to protect U.S. interests in that volatile region. He was a decorated patriot. Following his retirement from IAC, Dan and his lovely wife, Michele, a former county commissioner for Gem County, operated a government consulting firm. Dan also served as attorney for several cities. I rarely have known a couple so devoted to one another. They demonstrated that there is such a thing as a match made in heaven. I was privileged to have known Dan. Like the Boy Scout motto, he left his place on the Earth, the state of Idaho, much better than he found it. We sorely need many more dedicated public servants like Dan Chadwick. Jones Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors — low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session. For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components. Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation. Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges. To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions. Appellate positions — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently. Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006. Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts — the workload. District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy-duty felonies, like the Daybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job? Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary. Jones Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors — low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session. For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components. Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation. Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges. To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions. Appellate positions — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently. Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006. Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts — the workload. District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy-duty felonies, like the Daybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job? Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary. Jones Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors — low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session. For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components. Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation. Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges. To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions. Appellate positions — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently. Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006. Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts — the workload. District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy-duty felonies, like the Daybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job? Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary. Jones Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors — low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session. For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components. Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation. Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges. To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions. Appellate positions — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently. Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006. Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts — the workload. District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy-duty felonies, like the Daybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job? Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary. Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors — low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session. For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components. Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation. Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges. To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions. Appellate positions — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently. Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006. Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts — the workload. District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy-duty felonies, like the Daybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job? Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary. During his first year as Idaho attorney general, Raul Labrador has placed most of his chips on the abortion issue in his quest for higher office. He has been aided and abetted, free of charge, by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful extreme-right legal organization in the nation’s capital that is intent on stamping out any perceived form of abortion across the entire country. ADF played a major role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Labrador began his term as AG with a March 27 opinion declaring that Idaho’s strictest in the nation abortion laws criminalized Idaho doctors for “providing abortion pills” and “either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services” or to obtain abortion pills. When the opinion was challenged in court, Labrador withdrew it, but refused to disavow it. Strangely enough, Idaho’s laws are so strict that the opinion was probably correct, even though seriously suspect under the U.S. Constitution. Since that time, Labrador has opposed a federal rule change that would protect the confidentiality of pregnant women’s medical records from snooping state attorneys general. The rule is designed to protect the privacy of women who travel out of state for pregnancy care. Labrador has also strenuously sought to enforce Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. With free help from ADF, Labrador was able to prevent women with dangerous pregnancy conditions from getting stabilizing medical care in Idaho’s hospital emergency rooms. The only exception is where an abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Women who need care for a much-wanted, but nonviable, pregnancy have been forced out of state in order to get the care they need. The emergency care issue will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The Supreme Court will also consider in April whether to place restrictions on the dispensation of an abortion pill, mifepristone, which prevents pregnancy if taken within 10 days. That case, which originated in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, resulted in a ruling supported and cheered by Labrador and ADF last year. The district judge severely restricted use of the drug, but those restrictions were lessened by a federal circuit court and then lifted by the Supreme Court. The Court will rule on the extent of restrictions, if any, that will apply to dispensation of mifepristone. Labrador has established quite a track record for cracking down on abortions, even when necessary to protect the life and health of women who are desperate to have a child. But nothing can compare to the move he made in that federal court in Amarillo last November. He and two other state AGs asked the court for permission to file a complaint that seeks to totally ban the use of mifepristone and a follow-up drug, misoprostol, throughout the country. Misoprostol is used to induce a miscarriage. The lengthy complaint, which was likely drafted by ADF and its allies, is chock full of questionable assertions, including preposterous claims that both drugs are dangerous to patients. In the press coverage I’ve seen about the complaint, the request to ban the use of misoprostol has been overlooked. The requested ban is significant because that drug has been used safely and effectively for decades. Yet, right there at page 102, Labrador and the other two AGs ask the judge to order federal agencies “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs.” That is, to ban the use of both drugs throughout the country. On January 12 the judge granted the motion to file the complaint, so it will presumably proceed on a separate track from the case to be considered by the Supreme Court in April. AFD was lucky to have the three states front for it because it would not have had standing to get the case into court on its own — it’s good to have pliable, accommodating state attorneys general. If misoprostol is taken off the market, women like Kristin Colson of Boise will face the heart-breaking situation of a wanted, but non-viable pregnancy, made worse by having no medication available to safely manage the miscarriage. Colson had an anembryonic pregnancy and opted for misoprostol, rather than surgery or waiting weeks for her body to pass the tissue. She was surprised when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. She was able to get the prescription filled elsewhere but, if Labrador were to prevail in his Texas lawsuit, there would be no legal source for the drug anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether Labrador is aware of the impact that his extreme actions have on women who want to have viable pregnancies, but can’t, or whether he is simply blinded by his political ambitions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Idaho voters react to his all-in gamble on the abortion issue. Every legislative session brings some new “school choice” scheme that is touted as a way to improve elementary and secondary education in Idaho by offering more choices to families. Sometimes the plan is called a voucher, sometimes a stipend, sometimes a grant, sometimes a savings account. This year the scheme is called a “refundable tax credit.” What every plan has in common is the use of taxpayer money to subsidize private schooling, including religious and home schools. Because of the chronic failure of our legislatures in the last several decades to adequately fund public schools, the cost of such schemes will ultimately end up being forced upon local property taxpayers. The framers of the Idaho Constitution undoubtedly thought they had definitively dealt with the school choice issue. They placed a high priority on providing a foundational education for every Idaho child. The Constitution states: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The framers gave nary a hint that public monies could ever be used to pay for private education. Idaho law has always required parents to send their school-age kids to public schools. Parents can get around the compulsory attendance requirement by having their kids educated in a private school. So, Idaho parents have always had a school choice — they can either send their kids to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can pay out of pocket for any authorized form of private schooling. Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor the constitutional mandate to maintain a “thorough system” of education, primarily funded out of the state treasury. They would be profoundly amazed and saddened to learn that legislators have seriously and consistently violated this sacred duty. Thanks to the school funding lawsuit filed against the state in 1990, it is well known that Idaho legislators have failed to adequately fund the instructional side of public education during the last three decades. Because of pressure brought to bear by the Reclaim Idaho school funding initiative, the state significantly upped the ante of public funding in the special legislative session in 2022, but there is still a shortfall. Local school districts have been left with the choice of doing without adequate resources or saddling local property taxpayers to make up the difference. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had flat failed to fulfill its duty to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the giant share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. The cost of bringing existing buildings up to just “good” condition is about $1 billion, let alone funding new buildings for a growing population. School districts either have to try to educate kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds. The current “school choice” tax credit boondoggle, House Bill 447, would give private school parents $50 million in tax credits or payments right off of the top of the state budget. Providing a tax credit or deduction of taxes owing under the tax code, is using public monies for a private purpose. And, just who do you think will ultimately end up footing the bill? You got it, those long-suffering local property taxpayers who just don’t seem to have a strong voice in our legislature. The bill sponsors say the $50 million is a ceiling, but experience in other states shows that it is the first step of many on a costly escalator. We ought to simply follow the choice plan adopted by Idaho’s constitutional framers — finance a high-quality public school system with public money. And allow those who wish to opt for private, religious and home schooling to pay the expenses with their own funds. If they want Idaho taxpayers to fund their private education costs, they should try to change the Constitution instead of defying it. Many people have literally been moved by the ugly performance of Idaho’s Republican extremists in recent years. That is, significant numbers of teachers, librarians, doctors and others have moved out of the Gem State to escape the false claims and oppressive legislation conjured by the dysfunctional branch of Idaho’s GOP, now presided over by Dorothy Moon. On the other hand, that same wretched conduct has caused like-minded folk from across the country to move to our state, attracted by headlines that portray Idaho as a sanctuary for political zealots of every stripe. Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions. False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania. The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work. We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away. Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots. The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms for Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman. While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals,” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. In a special report that appeared in the January 30 issue of the Idaho Press, titled “Birds of a Feather,” the Adams Publishing Group indicates that political migration has become a national phenomenon in recent years, including Idaho. At least the moving companies are profiting. Idaho’s landmark Terrorist Control Act (TCA) will be rendered useless by passage of a bill recently introduced in the Idaho Senate. Among other things, the TCA makes it a serious felony for two or more people to conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the enjoyment of any constitutional right by the use of violence. Senate Bill 1220 would decriminalize any violent conspiracy that was not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization.” Violent acts like the bombings carried out by the Aryan Nations hate group in northern Idaho in 1986 could no longer be prosecuted under the TCA. Aryan Nations members exploded a pipe bomb at Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene on September 15, 1986, and set off three other bombs a few days later. Father Bill was shaken, but not physically injured, and there were no injuries sustained in the other blasts. The bombs were designed to intimidate and silence those like Father Bill who were exercising their constitutional right to speak out against the dangerous white supremacist group. Because the bombs did not result in bodily injury to Father Bill or others, Idaho law could not adequately punish the bombers for their violent actions. It was clear that Idaho needed to take action against violent domestic terrorists. As Idaho’s Attorney General, I proposed tough legislation in 1987, which failed in the House due to opposition from the National Rifle Association. I worked with the NRA and we were able to agree on strong language for the TCA, which remains on our law books today. The NRA proposed adding language from the federal Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which primarily targeted violent conspiracies by KKK members to prevent freed slaves from voting, speaking out, holding office and exercising other constitutional rights. The KKK Act language significantly improved and strengthened the TCA. The sponsor of SB1220 is a level-headed legislator who seems to have the misconception that the TCA, as written, could be used to prosecute school patrons. It simply would not happen, unless the patrons engaged in a violent conspiracy to deprive others of their constitutional rights. The KKK Act has been on the federal books since 1871 and I’m unaware of any case where non-intimidating, non-conspiring, non-violent school patrons have faced federal charges under that law. No inappropriate charges have been filed in Idaho under the TCA. In fact, the entire purpose of the TCA is to protect the constitutional rights of all Idahoans from violent conspiracists. That purpose is repeated throughout the present law. The problem with SB 1220 is that it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in an egregious situation like the Aryan Nation bombings in 1986, that the violent acts were “done in cooperation with any foreign terrorist organization.” Without that proof, the conspirators could not be held to account. The U.S. currently lists about 70 foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS-Mozambique. The chances that any of those groups would team up with conspirators in Idaho to commit violent acts is almost nil. The foreign cooperation requirement essentially guts the Terrorist Control Act. On the other hand, domestic terrorist incidents have increased dramatically in the United States in recent years. The Government Accountability Office reported last year that domestic terrorism-related cases increased 357% from 2013 to 2021. These are not cases involving foreign terrorist organizations. The 1986 Coeur d’Alene bombings finally awakened the entire state to the serious threat the Aryans posed to the safety of those in the area and to the image of the Gem State as a whole. Out of concern for the economic impact on commerce, the Idaho business community rose up in opposition to the group and its poisonous agenda. The TCA was enacted in response. With the growing threat of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and the consequent endangerment to the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens, this is not the time to neuter the TCA. That law was passed to rid our beautiful state of violent white supremacists. Let’s not put out the welcome mat for them. Judges are the heart of the American system of justice. Faith in our court system depends upon having judges who are competent and impartial. That, in turn, requires thorough vetting of judicial candidates to put the best qualified people on the bench. For over 50 years, Idaho has had procedures in place to ensure the appointment of highly qualified judges at every level of the court system. Magistrate judges, who handle misdemeanors and a wide range of specialty cases, are vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. District and appellate judges are thoroughly vetted by the non-political Idaho Judicial Council. The Council sends a list of up to 4 candidates for each position to the Governor for selection of the finalist. The system has worked well. Former Governor Butch Otter, who appointed over 55 district and appellate judges during his 12 years in office, regularly received praise from other governors across the country for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. During his 8 years as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, Roger Burdick received similar compliments from his high court colleagues from other states. While the appointment process is vitally important to a quality judiciary, it is critical that the state offer a compensation and retirement package that is attractive enough to bring in a significant number of judicial candidates. The package must be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for candidates who are making at least twice as much in private practice. That is where Idaho’s selection process has begun to fail. District court positions are the hardest to recruit for because of long hours, high stress and early burnout. Candidates must have 10 years of experience and most of those lawyers are getting close to their peak earning capacity. They are the highly qualified candidates we want and need to preside over our toughest, most challenging civil and criminal cases. Starting in 2021, the Judicial Council has averaged less than five applicants for the 16 district court openings. Previously, it was not unusual to get twice as many applicants for a vacancy. Part of the problem is that district court judges must stand for a possibly-contested election in the low turn-out primary every four years. Magistrates run every four years in a no-contest retention election. Magistrate openings, which pay $12,000 less than district court, generally get more than twice as many applicants. But compensation is the big problem with recruitment for district and appellate court positions. Idaho’s judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation. Last year we lost a talented Supreme Court Justice and a highly-regarded Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County because of the low pay. The pay for high court justices equates to $79 per hour, for district judges it is $72 per hour and for magistrate judges it is $69 per hour. In contrast, the Legislature often hires counsel to represent it in court for more than $470 per hour. In the last two years the Legislature has considered legislation to give a partisan slant to the Judicial Council process and to chip away at the retirement package that has previously attracted candidates to apply for district and appellate positions. They have never expected great wealth, but they have expected certainty as to the extent of the sacrifice they make in compensation in order to perform public service. To add insult to injury, judges were the only public employees who did not receive a 7% cost-of-living increase in 2022. Last January, Rep. Bruce Skaug, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed that judges “were robbed” for the slight. Unfortunately, the Legislature failed to provide restitution for the robbery. A good case could be made that the theft violated a provision of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting the reduction of judge’s compensation during their term of office, but that is for a later column. The fact is that we risk getting enough qualified candidates for judicial positions unless there is an immediate and substantial pay raise for all judges. It makes no sense to have judges deciding complicated cases that vitally affect the lives and fortunes of litigants where lawyers for the parties may well be receiving many times the $69 to $79 per hour that the judges are being paid. A 10% across-the-board increase for judges, in addition to any cost-of-living increase that other state employees might receive, is essential to get more highly-qualified lawyers to apply. And the Legislature should cease its tinkering with judicial election and retirement laws. As per the old saying, if we continue to pay peanuts to our judges, the judicial selection process may well be swamped by unqualified monkeys. Representative Russ Fulcher has failed to grasp that his repeated failure to support Ukraine in defending against Russia’s genocidal war is extremely harmful to America’s national security interests. Ukraine’s valiant fighters are shedding their blood to protect the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But their dogged defense has the side effect of bleeding and degrading Vladimir Putin’s war machine, reducing its threat against the United States and our allies. If the Ukrainians win, we won’t face the possibility of future hostilities with Russia. If they lose, we are in for continued conflict with Putin’s regime. Make no mistake, Putin is allying with China, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to try to take down America and its allies. Russia began using North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine in December and more are in the pipeline. But this is not the first dangerous flirtation between the two countries that has endangered the United States. North Korea would not have a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. and its Asian allies without the help of Russian scientists. Putin’s alliance with China and North Korea, called the Trilateral Imperialist Partnership, combines Russia’s nuclear arsenal, China’s economic and military power and North Korea’s lunacy into an extremely dangerous threat. A Russian win against Ukraine, would provide rocket fuel for this malevolent alliance. The stakes are exceedingly high. Perhaps a short refresher course would be helpful for Rep. Fulcher. After the Second World War, Russia gobbled up practically every country on its borders and conglomerated them into a totalitarian state called the Soviet Union. It was our mortal enemy for decades. During the Vietnam War, where I served in 1968-69, the Soviets supplied weapons to the communists that killed thousands of U.S. troops. President Reagan correctly called it the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet empire fell apart in 1991 and its citizens had a brief respite from state terror. In 2005, Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. He began working feverishly to recreate it, to seize former satellite countries, to enslave his people and do everything possible to break up America’s alliances and power around the world. Putin began hostilities against Ukraine in 2014, leading to the present barbarous war. Ukraine desperately needs massive military assistance from the U.S. and our NATO allies. We have a vital national interest in preventing Putin from winning his war of conquest. If he and his partners succeed, our NATO allies will be next in his sights and we will be obligated by treaty and our own vital security interests to join the war on their side. If Ukraine survives, it will provide a future NATO shield against Putin’s forces. Russ Fulcher does not seem to grasp the fact that aiding Ukraine is essential to America’s safety and security. In a December interview with columnist Chuck Malloy, Fulcher gave a rather garbled answer as to whether he would vote for further aid for Ukraine. He seemed to say that unless the President clarifies the Ukraine mission and addresses our southern border, it is “a deal-breaker” and “show-stopper” for him. It’s kind of like Congress telling FDR that no funding for the Normandy Invasion would be forthcoming unless the President clarified the mission and addressed some unrelated domestic problems. That’s really not the best way to protect our national security. If Fulcher needs clarity on the mission, he can bring up hundreds of news reports in which the President has outlined the mission and the drastic need for aid to achieve it by simply Googling “Biden calls for strong support for Ukraine.” Mention was made of the subject in two State of the Union speeches, which I assume Fulcher heard. Or, he could consult with Senator Jim Risch, who clearly understands the urgent need to help Ukraine, and protect the United States, in this critical moment. Risch told Malloy, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. If we abandon Ukraine...there will be major consequences...I believe it would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.” I’m hoping that with such high stakes, Fulcher can see the drastic need to support the American side of this ugly war. Prior to 2023, Idaho’s Attorneys General handled the State’s legal business without outside entanglements. During his first year in office, Raul Labrador has changed that non-interference policy. He has intertwined his chosen political priorities with out-of-state legal partners that have their own ideological axes to grind. One partner is a dark-money-funded group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that gives Idaho “free” legal representation. Another partner is a high-priced Washington law firm, Cooper & Kirk, that is currently charging Idaho taxpayers a rate of $495 per hour. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a Christian nationalist group that advances the most extreme anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations and its Church of Jesus Christ Christian in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF and Labrador have teamed up in three separate cases, so far. They are defending Idaho’s law criminalizing emergency room medical care for pregnant women, defending the Legislature’s transgender bathroom law and have meddled in a Washington State abortion pill case. Labrador has signed rather one-sided agreements with ADF to obtain their free legal help. If the State and ADF must pay the other side’s attorney fees, ADF is off the hook and the Idaho pays. If the other side must pay, the attorney fees are divided between the State and ADF. The State must consult with ADF in communicating with the media and is obligated to put out favorable publicity for ADF. Labrador is effectively giving Idaho’s stamp of approval to this extreme-right legal behemoth, which has 100 staff attorneys, about 5,000 lawyers in its network and nearly $100 million in revenues. One other item of interest is that Lincoln Wilson, who served in Labrador’s office until October, is now ADF’s representative in Idaho. Another lawyer, Theo Wold, who served as Labrador’s much ballyhooed Solicitor General, also left the office in October. Wold campaigned hard for Labrador’s election in 2022 and was one of his first hires. A former official in the Trump White House, Wold is a Christian nationalist and supporter of the Great Replacement conspiracy. Although he is gone from Labrador’s office, he will not soon be forgotten. His wife, Megan, is a member of the Washington law firm that is getting Idaho tax dollars to advance Labrador’s personal political agenda. Ms. Wold’s firm, Cooper & Kirk (C&K), is the go-to firm for extremist dark-money-funded clients. The firm has partnered with Labrador on at least two cases, so far. On July 11, Lincoln Wilson signed a contract with the firm to help in defending the new law criminalizing medical care for transgender youth. State taxpayers will be paying Wold’s firm an hourly rate of $495 per hour for lawyers and $80 for non-lawyers. Now that Wilson has left the AG’s office, ADF and C&K will be doing the kind of work that previous Idaho Attorneys General handled with staff attorneys. The federal district court in Idaho found on December 26 that the transgender ban violated the U.S. Constitution and that the State would likely lose the case at trial. That means the case will go to trial, ensuring more fees for C&K. Many of us predicted this outcome and one wonders why Labrador, who claimed he would give the Legislature the best legal advice so as to avoid losing cases, did not see this result coming. Needless to say, Labrador blamed the judge, not bad lawyering, for his loss. C&K contracted again with Labrador in November to look over a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to allow Idaho to enforce the strict prohibition against emergency maternal care, after he lost in the federal circuit court. C&K will get $10,000 for just reviewing his motion. The Wolds are doing well at the expense of Idaho taxpayers. Idaho should not allow its good name to be used for advancing the political or financial interests of out-of-state lawyers. Past practice in the Attorney General’s office is not to mix political agendas with the state’s legal business. The partnerships Labrador has formed with ADL and C&K lead one to wonder whose agenda is being served. All of these contracts seek to place documentation beyond the reach of Idaho’s public records law, so it may be tough to discover that important information. Jones During his first year as Idaho attorney general, Raul Labrador has placed most of his chips on the abortion issue in his quest for higher office. He has been aided and abetted, free of charge, by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful extreme-right legal organization in the nation’s capital that is intent on stamping out any perceived form of abortion across the entire country. ADF played a major role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Labrador began his term as AG with a March 27 opinion declaring that Idaho’s strictest in the nation abortion laws criminalized Idaho doctors for “providing abortion pills” and “either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services” or to obtain abortion pills. When the opinion was challenged in court, Labrador withdrew it, but refused to disavow it. Strangely enough, Idaho’s laws are so strict that the opinion was probably correct, even though seriously suspect under the U.S. Constitution. Since that time, Labrador has opposed a federal rule change that would protect the confidentiality of pregnant women’s medical records from snooping state attorneys general. The rule is designed to protect the privacy of women who travel out of state for pregnancy care. Labrador has also strenuously sought to enforce Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. With free help from ADF, Labrador was able to prevent women with dangerous pregnancy conditions from getting stabilizing medical care in Idaho’s hospital emergency rooms. The only exception is where an abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Women who need care for a much-wanted, but nonviable, pregnancy have been forced out of state in order to get the care they need. The emergency care issue will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The Supreme Court will also consider in April whether to place restrictions on the dispensation of an abortion pill, mifepristone, which prevents pregnancy if taken within 10 days. That case, which originated in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, resulted in a ruling supported and cheered by Labrador and ADF last year. The district judge severely restricted use of the drug, but those restrictions were lessened by a federal circuit court and then lifted by the Supreme Court. The Court will rule on the extent of restrictions, if any, that will apply to dispensation of mifepristone. Labrador has established quite a track record for cracking down on abortions, even when necessary to protect the life and health of women who are desperate to have a child. But nothing can compare to the move he made in that federal court in Amarillo last November. He and two other state AGs asked the court for permission to file a complaint that seeks to totally ban the use of mifepristone and a follow-up drug, misoprostol, throughout the country. Misoprostol is used to induce a miscarriage. The lengthy complaint, which was likely drafted by ADF and its allies, is chock full of questionable assertions, including preposterous claims that both drugs are dangerous to patients. In the press coverage I’ve seen about the complaint, the request to ban the use of misoprostol has been overlooked. The requested ban is significant because that drug has been used safely and effectively for decades. Yet, right there at page 102, Labrador and the other two AGs ask the judge to order federal agencies “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs.” That is, to ban the use of both drugs throughout the country. On January 12 the judge granted the motion to file the complaint, so it will presumably proceed on a separate track from the case to be considered by the Supreme Court in April. AFD was lucky to have the three states front for it because it would not have had standing to get the case into court on its own — it’s good to have pliable, accommodating state attorneys general. If misoprostol is taken off the market, women like Kristin Colson of Boise will face the heart-breaking situation of a wanted, but non-viable pregnancy, made worse by having no medication available to safely manage the miscarriage. Colson had an anembryonic pregnancy and opted for misoprostol, rather than surgery or waiting weeks for her body to pass the tissue. She was surprised when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. She was able to get the prescription filled elsewhere but, if Labrador were to prevail in his Texas lawsuit, there would be no legal source for the drug anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether Labrador is aware of the impact that his extreme actions have on women who want to have viable pregnancies, but can’t, or whether he is simply blinded by his political ambitions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Idaho voters react to his all-in gamble on the abortion issue. Jones Every legislative session brings some new “school choice” scheme that is touted as a way to improve elementary and secondary education in Idaho by offering more choices to families. Sometimes the plan is called a voucher, sometimes a stipend, sometimes a grant, sometimes a savings account. This year the scheme is called a “refundable tax credit.” What every plan has in common is the use of taxpayer money to subsidize private schooling, including religious and home schools. Because of the chronic failure of our legislatures in the last several decades to adequately fund public schools, the cost of such schemes will ultimately end up being forced upon local property taxpayers. The framers of the Idaho Constitution undoubtedly thought they had definitively dealt with the school choice issue. They placed a high priority on providing a foundational education for every Idaho child. The Constitution states: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The framers gave nary a hint that public monies could ever be used to pay for private education. Idaho law has always required parents to send their school-age kids to public schools. Parents can get around the compulsory attendance requirement by having their kids educated in a private school. So, Idaho parents have always had a school choice — they can either send their kids to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can pay out of pocket for any authorized form of private schooling. Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor the constitutional mandate to maintain a “thorough system” of education, primarily funded out of the state treasury. They would be profoundly amazed and saddened to learn that legislators have seriously and consistently violated this sacred duty. Thanks to the school funding lawsuit filed against the state in 1990, it is well known that Idaho legislators have failed to adequately fund the instructional side of public education during the last three decades. Because of pressure brought to bear by the Reclaim Idaho school funding initiative, the state significantly upped the ante of public funding in the special legislative session in 2022, but there is still a shortfall. Local school districts have been left with the choice of doing without adequate resources or saddling local property taxpayers to make up the difference. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had flat failed to fulfill its duty to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the giant share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. The cost of bringing existing buildings up to just “good” condition is about $1 billion, let alone funding new buildings for a growing population. School districts either have to try to educate kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds. The current “school choice” tax credit boondoggle, House Bill 447, would give private school parents $50 million in tax credits or payments right off of the top of the state budget. Providing a tax credit or deduction of taxes owing under the tax code, is using public monies for a private purpose. And, just who do you think will ultimately end up footing the bill? You got it, those long-suffering local property taxpayers who just don’t seem to have a strong voice in our legislature. The bill sponsors say the $50 million is a ceiling, but experience in other states shows that it is the first step of many on a costly escalator. We ought to simply follow the choice plan adopted by Idaho’s constitutional framers — finance a high-quality public school system with public money. And allow those who wish to opt for private, religious and home schooling to pay the expenses with their own funds. If they want Idaho taxpayers to fund their private education costs, they should try to change the Constitution instead of defying it. Many people have literally been moved by the ugly performance of Idaho’s Republican extremists in recent years. That is, significant numbers of teachers, librarians, doctors and others have moved out of the Gem State to escape the false claims and oppressive legislation conjured by the dysfunctional branch of Idaho’s GOP, now presided over by Dorothy Moon. On the other hand, that same wretched conduct has caused like-minded folk from across the country to move to our state, attracted by headlines that portray Idaho as a sanctuary for political zealots of every stripe. Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions. False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania. The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work. We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away. Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots. The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms for Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman. While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals,” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. In a special report that appeared in the January 30 issue of the Idaho Press, titled “Birds of a Feather,” the Adams Publishing Group indicates that political migration has become a national phenomenon in recent years, including Idaho. At least the moving companies are profiting. Idaho’s landmark Terrorist Control Act (TCA) will be rendered useless by passage of a bill recently introduced in the Idaho Senate. Among other things, the TCA makes it a serious felony for two or more people to conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the enjoyment of any constitutional right by the use of violence. Senate Bill 1220 would decriminalize any violent conspiracy that was not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization.” Violent acts like the bombings carried out by the Aryan Nations hate group in northern Idaho in 1986 could no longer be prosecuted under the TCA. Aryan Nations members exploded a pipe bomb at Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene on September 15, 1986, and set off three other bombs a few days later. Father Bill was shaken, but not physically injured, and there were no injuries sustained in the other blasts. The bombs were designed to intimidate and silence those like Father Bill who were exercising their constitutional right to speak out against the dangerous white supremacist group. Because the bombs did not result in bodily injury to Father Bill or others, Idaho law could not adequately punish the bombers for their violent actions. It was clear that Idaho needed to take action against violent domestic terrorists. As Idaho’s Attorney General, I proposed tough legislation in 1987, which failed in the House due to opposition from the National Rifle Association. I worked with the NRA and we were able to agree on strong language for the TCA, which remains on our law books today. The NRA proposed adding language from the federal Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which primarily targeted violent conspiracies by KKK members to prevent freed slaves from voting, speaking out, holding office and exercising other constitutional rights. The KKK Act language significantly improved and strengthened the TCA. The sponsor of SB1220 is a level-headed legislator who seems to have the misconception that the TCA, as written, could be used to prosecute school patrons. It simply would not happen, unless the patrons engaged in a violent conspiracy to deprive others of their constitutional rights. The KKK Act has been on the federal books since 1871 and I’m unaware of any case where non-intimidating, non-conspiring, non-violent school patrons have faced federal charges under that law. No inappropriate charges have been filed in Idaho under the TCA. In fact, the entire purpose of the TCA is to protect the constitutional rights of all Idahoans from violent conspiracists. That purpose is repeated throughout the present law. The problem with SB 1220 is that it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in an egregious situation like the Aryan Nation bombings in 1986, that the violent acts were “done in cooperation with any foreign terrorist organization.” Without that proof, the conspirators could not be held to account. The U.S. currently lists about 70 foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS-Mozambique. The chances that any of those groups would team up with conspirators in Idaho to commit violent acts is almost nil. The foreign cooperation requirement essentially guts the Terrorist Control Act. On the other hand, domestic terrorist incidents have increased dramatically in the United States in recent years. The Government Accountability Office reported last year that domestic terrorism-related cases increased 357% from 2013 to 2021. These are not cases involving foreign terrorist organizations. The 1986 Coeur d’Alene bombings finally awakened the entire state to the serious threat the Aryans posed to the safety of those in the area and to the image of the Gem State as a whole. Out of concern for the economic impact on commerce, the Idaho business community rose up in opposition to the group and its poisonous agenda. The TCA was enacted in response. With the growing threat of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and the consequent endangerment to the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens, this is not the time to neuter the TCA. That law was passed to rid our beautiful state of violent white supremacists. Let’s not put out the welcome mat for them. Judges are the heart of the American system of justice. Faith in our court system depends upon having judges who are competent and impartial. That, in turn, requires thorough vetting of judicial candidates to put the best qualified people on the bench. For over 50 years, Idaho has had procedures in place to ensure the appointment of highly qualified judges at every level of the court system. Magistrate judges, who handle misdemeanors and a wide range of specialty cases, are vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. District and appellate judges are thoroughly vetted by the non-political Idaho Judicial Council. The Council sends a list of up to 4 candidates for each position to the Governor for selection of the finalist. The system has worked well. Former Governor Butch Otter, who appointed over 55 district and appellate judges during his 12 years in office, regularly received praise from other governors across the country for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. During his 8 years as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, Roger Burdick received similar compliments from his high court colleagues from other states. While the appointment process is vitally important to a quality judiciary, it is critical that the state offer a compensation and retirement package that is attractive enough to bring in a significant number of judicial candidates. The package must be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for candidates who are making at least twice as much in private practice. That is where Idaho’s selection process has begun to fail. District court positions are the hardest to recruit for because of long hours, high stress and early burnout. Candidates must have 10 years of experience and most of those lawyers are getting close to their peak earning capacity. They are the highly qualified candidates we want and need to preside over our toughest, most challenging civil and criminal cases. Starting in 2021, the Judicial Council has averaged less than five applicants for the 16 district court openings. Previously, it was not unusual to get twice as many applicants for a vacancy. Part of the problem is that district court judges must stand for a possibly-contested election in the low turn-out primary every four years. Magistrates run every four years in a no-contest retention election. Magistrate openings, which pay $12,000 less than district court, generally get more than twice as many applicants. But compensation is the big problem with recruitment for district and appellate court positions. Idaho’s judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation. Last year we lost a talented Supreme Court Justice and a highly-regarded Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County because of the low pay. The pay for high court justices equates to $79 per hour, for district judges it is $72 per hour and for magistrate judges it is $69 per hour. In contrast, the Legislature often hires counsel to represent it in court for more than $470 per hour. In the last two years the Legislature has considered legislation to give a partisan slant to the Judicial Council process and to chip away at the retirement package that has previously attracted candidates to apply for district and appellate positions. They have never expected great wealth, but they have expected certainty as to the extent of the sacrifice they make in compensation in order to perform public service. To add insult to injury, judges were the only public employees who did not receive a 7% cost-of-living increase in 2022. Last January, Rep. Bruce Skaug, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed that judges “were robbed” for the slight. Unfortunately, the Legislature failed to provide restitution for the robbery. A good case could be made that the theft violated a provision of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting the reduction of judge’s compensation during their term of office, but that is for a later column. The fact is that we risk getting enough qualified candidates for judicial positions unless there is an immediate and substantial pay raise for all judges. It makes no sense to have judges deciding complicated cases that vitally affect the lives and fortunes of litigants where lawyers for the parties may well be receiving many times the $69 to $79 per hour that the judges are being paid. A 10% across-the-board increase for judges, in addition to any cost-of-living increase that other state employees might receive, is essential to get more highly-qualified lawyers to apply. And the Legislature should cease its tinkering with judicial election and retirement laws. As per the old saying, if we continue to pay peanuts to our judges, the judicial selection process may well be swamped by unqualified monkeys. Representative Russ Fulcher has failed to grasp that his repeated failure to support Ukraine in defending against Russia’s genocidal war is extremely harmful to America’s national security interests. Ukraine’s valiant fighters are shedding their blood to protect the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But their dogged defense has the side effect of bleeding and degrading Vladimir Putin’s war machine, reducing its threat against the United States and our allies. If the Ukrainians win, we won’t face the possibility of future hostilities with Russia. If they lose, we are in for continued conflict with Putin’s regime. Make no mistake, Putin is allying with China, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to try to take down America and its allies. Russia began using North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine in December and more are in the pipeline. But this is not the first dangerous flirtation between the two countries that has endangered the United States. North Korea would not have a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. and its Asian allies without the help of Russian scientists. Putin’s alliance with China and North Korea, called the Trilateral Imperialist Partnership, combines Russia’s nuclear arsenal, China’s economic and military power and North Korea’s lunacy into an extremely dangerous threat. A Russian win against Ukraine, would provide rocket fuel for this malevolent alliance. The stakes are exceedingly high. Perhaps a short refresher course would be helpful for Rep. Fulcher. After the Second World War, Russia gobbled up practically every country on its borders and conglomerated them into a totalitarian state called the Soviet Union. It was our mortal enemy for decades. During the Vietnam War, where I served in 1968-69, the Soviets supplied weapons to the communists that killed thousands of U.S. troops. President Reagan correctly called it the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet empire fell apart in 1991 and its citizens had a brief respite from state terror. In 2005, Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. He began working feverishly to recreate it, to seize former satellite countries, to enslave his people and do everything possible to break up America’s alliances and power around the world. Putin began hostilities against Ukraine in 2014, leading to the present barbarous war. Ukraine desperately needs massive military assistance from the U.S. and our NATO allies. We have a vital national interest in preventing Putin from winning his war of conquest. If he and his partners succeed, our NATO allies will be next in his sights and we will be obligated by treaty and our own vital security interests to join the war on their side. If Ukraine survives, it will provide a future NATO shield against Putin’s forces. Russ Fulcher does not seem to grasp the fact that aiding Ukraine is essential to America’s safety and security. In a December interview with columnist Chuck Malloy, Fulcher gave a rather garbled answer as to whether he would vote for further aid for Ukraine. He seemed to say that unless the President clarifies the Ukraine mission and addresses our southern border, it is “a deal-breaker” and “show-stopper” for him. It’s kind of like Congress telling FDR that no funding for the Normandy Invasion would be forthcoming unless the President clarified the mission and addressed some unrelated domestic problems. That’s really not the best way to protect our national security. If Fulcher needs clarity on the mission, he can bring up hundreds of news reports in which the President has outlined the mission and the drastic need for aid to achieve it by simply Googling “Biden calls for strong support for Ukraine.” Mention was made of the subject in two State of the Union speeches, which I assume Fulcher heard. Or, he could consult with Senator Jim Risch, who clearly understands the urgent need to help Ukraine, and protect the United States, in this critical moment. Risch told Malloy, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. If we abandon Ukraine...there will be major consequences...I believe it would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.” I’m hoping that with such high stakes, Fulcher can see the drastic need to support the American side of this ugly war. Prior to 2023, Idaho’s Attorneys General handled the State’s legal business without outside entanglements. During his first year in office, Raul Labrador has changed that non-interference policy. He has intertwined his chosen political priorities with out-of-state legal partners that have their own ideological axes to grind. One partner is a dark-money-funded group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that gives Idaho “free” legal representation. Another partner is a high-priced Washington law firm, Cooper & Kirk, that is currently charging Idaho taxpayers a rate of $495 per hour. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a Christian nationalist group that advances the most extreme anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations and its Church of Jesus Christ Christian in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF and Labrador have teamed up in three separate cases, so far. They are defending Idaho’s law criminalizing emergency room medical care for pregnant women, defending the Legislature’s transgender bathroom law and have meddled in a Washington State abortion pill case. Labrador has signed rather one-sided agreements with ADF to obtain their free legal help. If the State and ADF must pay the other side’s attorney fees, ADF is off the hook and the Idaho pays. If the other side must pay, the attorney fees are divided between the State and ADF. The State must consult with ADF in communicating with the media and is obligated to put out favorable publicity for ADF. Labrador is effectively giving Idaho’s stamp of approval to this extreme-right legal behemoth, which has 100 staff attorneys, about 5,000 lawyers in its network and nearly $100 million in revenues. One other item of interest is that Lincoln Wilson, who served in Labrador’s office until October, is now ADF’s representative in Idaho. Another lawyer, Theo Wold, who served as Labrador’s much ballyhooed Solicitor General, also left the office in October. Wold campaigned hard for Labrador’s election in 2022 and was one of his first hires. A former official in the Trump White House, Wold is a Christian nationalist and supporter of the Great Replacement conspiracy. Although he is gone from Labrador’s office, he will not soon be forgotten. His wife, Megan, is a member of the Washington law firm that is getting Idaho tax dollars to advance Labrador’s personal political agenda. Ms. Wold’s firm, Cooper & Kirk (C&K), is the go-to firm for extremist dark-money-funded clients. The firm has partnered with Labrador on at least two cases, so far. On July 11, Lincoln Wilson signed a contract with the firm to help in defending the new law criminalizing medical care for transgender youth. State taxpayers will be paying Wold’s firm an hourly rate of $495 per hour for lawyers and $80 for non-lawyers. Now that Wilson has left the AG’s office, ADF and C&K will be doing the kind of work that previous Idaho Attorneys General handled with staff attorneys. The federal district court in Idaho found on December 26 that the transgender ban violated the U.S. Constitution and that the State would likely lose the case at trial. That means the case will go to trial, ensuring more fees for C&K. Many of us predicted this outcome and one wonders why Labrador, who claimed he would give the Legislature the best legal advice so as to avoid losing cases, did not see this result coming. Needless to say, Labrador blamed the judge, not bad lawyering, for his loss. C&K contracted again with Labrador in November to look over a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to allow Idaho to enforce the strict prohibition against emergency maternal care, after he lost in the federal circuit court. C&K will get $10,000 for just reviewing his motion. The Wolds are doing well at the expense of Idaho taxpayers. Idaho should not allow its good name to be used for advancing the political or financial interests of out-of-state lawyers. Past practice in the Attorney General’s office is not to mix political agendas with the state’s legal business. The partnerships Labrador has formed with ADL and C&K lead one to wonder whose agenda is being served. All of these contracts seek to place documentation beyond the reach of Idaho’s public records law, so it may be tough to discover that important information. Jones During his first year as Idaho attorney general, Raul Labrador has placed most of his chips on the abortion issue in his quest for higher office. He has been aided and abetted, free of charge, by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful extreme-right legal organization in the nation’s capital that is intent on stamping out any perceived form of abortion across the entire country. ADF played a major role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Labrador began his term as AG with a March 27 opinion declaring that Idaho’s strictest in the nation abortion laws criminalized Idaho doctors for “providing abortion pills” and “either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services” or to obtain abortion pills. When the opinion was challenged in court, Labrador withdrew it, but refused to disavow it. Strangely enough, Idaho’s laws are so strict that the opinion was probably correct, even though seriously suspect under the U.S. Constitution. Since that time, Labrador has opposed a federal rule change that would protect the confidentiality of pregnant women’s medical records from snooping state attorneys general. The rule is designed to protect the privacy of women who travel out of state for pregnancy care. Labrador has also strenuously sought to enforce Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. With free help from ADF, Labrador was able to prevent women with dangerous pregnancy conditions from getting stabilizing medical care in Idaho’s hospital emergency rooms. The only exception is where an abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Women who need care for a much-wanted, but nonviable, pregnancy have been forced out of state in order to get the care they need. The emergency care issue will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The Supreme Court will also consider in April whether to place restrictions on the dispensation of an abortion pill, mifepristone, which prevents pregnancy if taken within 10 days. That case, which originated in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, resulted in a ruling supported and cheered by Labrador and ADF last year. The district judge severely restricted use of the drug, but those restrictions were lessened by a federal circuit court and then lifted by the Supreme Court. The Court will rule on the extent of restrictions, if any, that will apply to dispensation of mifepristone. Labrador has established quite a track record for cracking down on abortions, even when necessary to protect the life and health of women who are desperate to have a child. But nothing can compare to the move he made in that federal court in Amarillo last November. He and two other state AGs asked the court for permission to file a complaint that seeks to totally ban the use of mifepristone and a follow-up drug, misoprostol, throughout the country. Misoprostol is used to induce a miscarriage. The lengthy complaint, which was likely drafted by ADF and its allies, is chock full of questionable assertions, including preposterous claims that both drugs are dangerous to patients. In the press coverage I’ve seen about the complaint, the request to ban the use of misoprostol has been overlooked. The requested ban is significant because that drug has been used safely and effectively for decades. Yet, right there at page 102, Labrador and the other two AGs ask the judge to order federal agencies “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs.” That is, to ban the use of both drugs throughout the country. On January 12 the judge granted the motion to file the complaint, so it will presumably proceed on a separate track from the case to be considered by the Supreme Court in April. AFD was lucky to have the three states front for it because it would not have had standing to get the case into court on its own — it’s good to have pliable, accommodating state attorneys general. If misoprostol is taken off the market, women like Kristin Colson of Boise will face the heart-breaking situation of a wanted, but non-viable pregnancy, made worse by having no medication available to safely manage the miscarriage. Colson had an anembryonic pregnancy and opted for misoprostol, rather than surgery or waiting weeks for her body to pass the tissue. She was surprised when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. She was able to get the prescription filled elsewhere but, if Labrador were to prevail in his Texas lawsuit, there would be no legal source for the drug anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether Labrador is aware of the impact that his extreme actions have on women who want to have viable pregnancies, but can’t, or whether he is simply blinded by his political ambitions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Idaho voters react to his all-in gamble on the abortion issue. Jones Every legislative session brings some new “school choice” scheme that is touted as a way to improve elementary and secondary education in Idaho by offering more choices to families. Sometimes the plan is called a voucher, sometimes a stipend, sometimes a grant, sometimes a savings account. This year the scheme is called a “refundable tax credit.” What every plan has in common is the use of taxpayer money to subsidize private schooling, including religious and home schools. Because of the chronic failure of our legislatures in the last several decades to adequately fund public schools, the cost of such schemes will ultimately end up being forced upon local property taxpayers. The framers of the Idaho Constitution undoubtedly thought they had definitively dealt with the school choice issue. They placed a high priority on providing a foundational education for every Idaho child. The Constitution states: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The framers gave nary a hint that public monies could ever be used to pay for private education. Idaho law has always required parents to send their school-age kids to public schools. Parents can get around the compulsory attendance requirement by having their kids educated in a private school. So, Idaho parents have always had a school choice — they can either send their kids to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can pay out of pocket for any authorized form of private schooling. Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor the constitutional mandate to maintain a “thorough system” of education, primarily funded out of the state treasury. They would be profoundly amazed and saddened to learn that legislators have seriously and consistently violated this sacred duty. Thanks to the school funding lawsuit filed against the state in 1990, it is well known that Idaho legislators have failed to adequately fund the instructional side of public education during the last three decades. Because of pressure brought to bear by the Reclaim Idaho school funding initiative, the state significantly upped the ante of public funding in the special legislative session in 2022, but there is still a shortfall. Local school districts have been left with the choice of doing without adequate resources or saddling local property taxpayers to make up the difference. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had flat failed to fulfill its duty to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the giant share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. The cost of bringing existing buildings up to just “good” condition is about $1 billion, let alone funding new buildings for a growing population. School districts either have to try to educate kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds. The current “school choice” tax credit boondoggle, House Bill 447, would give private school parents $50 million in tax credits or payments right off of the top of the state budget. Providing a tax credit or deduction of taxes owing under the tax code, is using public monies for a private purpose. And, just who do you think will ultimately end up footing the bill? You got it, those long-suffering local property taxpayers who just don’t seem to have a strong voice in our legislature. The bill sponsors say the $50 million is a ceiling, but experience in other states shows that it is the first step of many on a costly escalator. We ought to simply follow the choice plan adopted by Idaho’s constitutional framers — finance a high-quality public school system with public money. And allow those who wish to opt for private, religious and home schooling to pay the expenses with their own funds. If they want Idaho taxpayers to fund their private education costs, they should try to change the Constitution instead of defying it. Many people have literally been moved by the ugly performance of Idaho’s Republican extremists in recent years. That is, significant numbers of teachers, librarians, doctors and others have moved out of the Gem State to escape the false claims and oppressive legislation conjured by the dysfunctional branch of Idaho’s GOP, now presided over by Dorothy Moon. On the other hand, that same wretched conduct has caused like-minded folk from across the country to move to our state, attracted by headlines that portray Idaho as a sanctuary for political zealots of every stripe. Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions. False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania. The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work. We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away. Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots. The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms for Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman. While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals,” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. In a special report that appeared in the January 30 issue of the Idaho Press, titled “Birds of a Feather,” the Adams Publishing Group indicates that political migration has become a national phenomenon in recent years, including Idaho. At least the moving companies are profiting. Idaho’s landmark Terrorist Control Act (TCA) will be rendered useless by passage of a bill recently introduced in the Idaho Senate. Among other things, the TCA makes it a serious felony for two or more people to conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the enjoyment of any constitutional right by the use of violence. Senate Bill 1220 would decriminalize any violent conspiracy that was not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization.” Violent acts like the bombings carried out by the Aryan Nations hate group in northern Idaho in 1986 could no longer be prosecuted under the TCA. Aryan Nations members exploded a pipe bomb at Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene on September 15, 1986, and set off three other bombs a few days later. Father Bill was shaken, but not physically injured, and there were no injuries sustained in the other blasts. The bombs were designed to intimidate and silence those like Father Bill who were exercising their constitutional right to speak out against the dangerous white supremacist group. Because the bombs did not result in bodily injury to Father Bill or others, Idaho law could not adequately punish the bombers for their violent actions. It was clear that Idaho needed to take action against violent domestic terrorists. As Idaho’s Attorney General, I proposed tough legislation in 1987, which failed in the House due to opposition from the National Rifle Association. I worked with the NRA and we were able to agree on strong language for the TCA, which remains on our law books today. The NRA proposed adding language from the federal Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which primarily targeted violent conspiracies by KKK members to prevent freed slaves from voting, speaking out, holding office and exercising other constitutional rights. The KKK Act language significantly improved and strengthened the TCA. The sponsor of SB1220 is a level-headed legislator who seems to have the misconception that the TCA, as written, could be used to prosecute school patrons. It simply would not happen, unless the patrons engaged in a violent conspiracy to deprive others of their constitutional rights. The KKK Act has been on the federal books since 1871 and I’m unaware of any case where non-intimidating, non-conspiring, non-violent school patrons have faced federal charges under that law. No inappropriate charges have been filed in Idaho under the TCA. In fact, the entire purpose of the TCA is to protect the constitutional rights of all Idahoans from violent conspiracists. That purpose is repeated throughout the present law. The problem with SB 1220 is that it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in an egregious situation like the Aryan Nation bombings in 1986, that the violent acts were “done in cooperation with any foreign terrorist organization.” Without that proof, the conspirators could not be held to account. The U.S. currently lists about 70 foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS-Mozambique. The chances that any of those groups would team up with conspirators in Idaho to commit violent acts is almost nil. The foreign cooperation requirement essentially guts the Terrorist Control Act. On the other hand, domestic terrorist incidents have increased dramatically in the United States in recent years. The Government Accountability Office reported last year that domestic terrorism-related cases increased 357% from 2013 to 2021. These are not cases involving foreign terrorist organizations. The 1986 Coeur d’Alene bombings finally awakened the entire state to the serious threat the Aryans posed to the safety of those in the area and to the image of the Gem State as a whole. Out of concern for the economic impact on commerce, the Idaho business community rose up in opposition to the group and its poisonous agenda. The TCA was enacted in response. With the growing threat of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and the consequent endangerment to the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens, this is not the time to neuter the TCA. That law was passed to rid our beautiful state of violent white supremacists. Let’s not put out the welcome mat for them. Judges are the heart of the American system of justice. Faith in our court system depends upon having judges who are competent and impartial. That, in turn, requires thorough vetting of judicial candidates to put the best qualified people on the bench. For over 50 years, Idaho has had procedures in place to ensure the appointment of highly qualified judges at every level of the court system. Magistrate judges, who handle misdemeanors and a wide range of specialty cases, are vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. District and appellate judges are thoroughly vetted by the non-political Idaho Judicial Council. The Council sends a list of up to 4 candidates for each position to the Governor for selection of the finalist. The system has worked well. Former Governor Butch Otter, who appointed over 55 district and appellate judges during his 12 years in office, regularly received praise from other governors across the country for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. During his 8 years as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, Roger Burdick received similar compliments from his high court colleagues from other states. While the appointment process is vitally important to a quality judiciary, it is critical that the state offer a compensation and retirement package that is attractive enough to bring in a significant number of judicial candidates. The package must be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for candidates who are making at least twice as much in private practice. That is where Idaho’s selection process has begun to fail. District court positions are the hardest to recruit for because of long hours, high stress and early burnout. Candidates must have 10 years of experience and most of those lawyers are getting close to their peak earning capacity. They are the highly qualified candidates we want and need to preside over our toughest, most challenging civil and criminal cases. Starting in 2021, the Judicial Council has averaged less than five applicants for the 16 district court openings. Previously, it was not unusual to get twice as many applicants for a vacancy. Part of the problem is that district court judges must stand for a possibly-contested election in the low turn-out primary every four years. Magistrates run every four years in a no-contest retention election. Magistrate openings, which pay $12,000 less than district court, generally get more than twice as many applicants. But compensation is the big problem with recruitment for district and appellate court positions. Idaho’s judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation. Last year we lost a talented Supreme Court Justice and a highly-regarded Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County because of the low pay. The pay for high court justices equates to $79 per hour, for district judges it is $72 per hour and for magistrate judges it is $69 per hour. In contrast, the Legislature often hires counsel to represent it in court for more than $470 per hour. In the last two years the Legislature has considered legislation to give a partisan slant to the Judicial Council process and to chip away at the retirement package that has previously attracted candidates to apply for district and appellate positions. They have never expected great wealth, but they have expected certainty as to the extent of the sacrifice they make in compensation in order to perform public service. To add insult to injury, judges were the only public employees who did not receive a 7% cost-of-living increase in 2022. Last January, Rep. Bruce Skaug, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed that judges “were robbed” for the slight. Unfortunately, the Legislature failed to provide restitution for the robbery. A good case could be made that the theft violated a provision of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting the reduction of judge’s compensation during their term of office, but that is for a later column. The fact is that we risk getting enough qualified candidates for judicial positions unless there is an immediate and substantial pay raise for all judges. It makes no sense to have judges deciding complicated cases that vitally affect the lives and fortunes of litigants where lawyers for the parties may well be receiving many times the $69 to $79 per hour that the judges are being paid. A 10% across-the-board increase for judges, in addition to any cost-of-living increase that other state employees might receive, is essential to get more highly-qualified lawyers to apply. And the Legislature should cease its tinkering with judicial election and retirement laws. As per the old saying, if we continue to pay peanuts to our judges, the judicial selection process may well be swamped by unqualified monkeys. Representative Russ Fulcher has failed to grasp that his repeated failure to support Ukraine in defending against Russia’s genocidal war is extremely harmful to America’s national security interests. Ukraine’s valiant fighters are shedding their blood to protect the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But their dogged defense has the side effect of bleeding and degrading Vladimir Putin’s war machine, reducing its threat against the United States and our allies. If the Ukrainians win, we won’t face the possibility of future hostilities with Russia. If they lose, we are in for continued conflict with Putin’s regime. Make no mistake, Putin is allying with China, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to try to take down America and its allies. Russia began using North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine in December and more are in the pipeline. But this is not the first dangerous flirtation between the two countries that has endangered the United States. North Korea would not have a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. and its Asian allies without the help of Russian scientists. Putin’s alliance with China and North Korea, called the Trilateral Imperialist Partnership, combines Russia’s nuclear arsenal, China’s economic and military power and North Korea’s lunacy into an extremely dangerous threat. A Russian win against Ukraine, would provide rocket fuel for this malevolent alliance. The stakes are exceedingly high. Perhaps a short refresher course would be helpful for Rep. Fulcher. After the Second World War, Russia gobbled up practically every country on its borders and conglomerated them into a totalitarian state called the Soviet Union. It was our mortal enemy for decades. During the Vietnam War, where I served in 1968-69, the Soviets supplied weapons to the communists that killed thousands of U.S. troops. President Reagan correctly called it the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet empire fell apart in 1991 and its citizens had a brief respite from state terror. In 2005, Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. He began working feverishly to recreate it, to seize former satellite countries, to enslave his people and do everything possible to break up America’s alliances and power around the world. Putin began hostilities against Ukraine in 2014, leading to the present barbarous war. Ukraine desperately needs massive military assistance from the U.S. and our NATO allies. We have a vital national interest in preventing Putin from winning his war of conquest. If he and his partners succeed, our NATO allies will be next in his sights and we will be obligated by treaty and our own vital security interests to join the war on their side. If Ukraine survives, it will provide a future NATO shield against Putin’s forces. Russ Fulcher does not seem to grasp the fact that aiding Ukraine is essential to America’s safety and security. In a December interview with columnist Chuck Malloy, Fulcher gave a rather garbled answer as to whether he would vote for further aid for Ukraine. He seemed to say that unless the President clarifies the Ukraine mission and addresses our southern border, it is “a deal-breaker” and “show-stopper” for him. It’s kind of like Congress telling FDR that no funding for the Normandy Invasion would be forthcoming unless the President clarified the mission and addressed some unrelated domestic problems. That’s really not the best way to protect our national security. If Fulcher needs clarity on the mission, he can bring up hundreds of news reports in which the President has outlined the mission and the drastic need for aid to achieve it by simply Googling “Biden calls for strong support for Ukraine.” Mention was made of the subject in two State of the Union speeches, which I assume Fulcher heard. Or, he could consult with Senator Jim Risch, who clearly understands the urgent need to help Ukraine, and protect the United States, in this critical moment. Risch told Malloy, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. If we abandon Ukraine...there will be major consequences...I believe it would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.” I’m hoping that with such high stakes, Fulcher can see the drastic need to support the American side of this ugly war. Prior to 2023, Idaho’s Attorneys General handled the State’s legal business without outside entanglements. During his first year in office, Raul Labrador has changed that non-interference policy. He has intertwined his chosen political priorities with out-of-state legal partners that have their own ideological axes to grind. One partner is a dark-money-funded group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that gives Idaho “free” legal representation. Another partner is a high-priced Washington law firm, Cooper & Kirk, that is currently charging Idaho taxpayers a rate of $495 per hour. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a Christian nationalist group that advances the most extreme anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations and its Church of Jesus Christ Christian in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF and Labrador have teamed up in three separate cases, so far. They are defending Idaho’s law criminalizing emergency room medical care for pregnant women, defending the Legislature’s transgender bathroom law and have meddled in a Washington State abortion pill case. Labrador has signed rather one-sided agreements with ADF to obtain their free legal help. If the State and ADF must pay the other side’s attorney fees, ADF is off the hook and the Idaho pays. If the other side must pay, the attorney fees are divided between the State and ADF. The State must consult with ADF in communicating with the media and is obligated to put out favorable publicity for ADF. Labrador is effectively giving Idaho’s stamp of approval to this extreme-right legal behemoth, which has 100 staff attorneys, about 5,000 lawyers in its network and nearly $100 million in revenues. One other item of interest is that Lincoln Wilson, who served in Labrador’s office until October, is now ADF’s representative in Idaho. Another lawyer, Theo Wold, who served as Labrador’s much ballyhooed Solicitor General, also left the office in October. Wold campaigned hard for Labrador’s election in 2022 and was one of his first hires. A former official in the Trump White House, Wold is a Christian nationalist and supporter of the Great Replacement conspiracy. Although he is gone from Labrador’s office, he will not soon be forgotten. His wife, Megan, is a member of the Washington law firm that is getting Idaho tax dollars to advance Labrador’s personal political agenda. Ms. Wold’s firm, Cooper & Kirk (C&K), is the go-to firm for extremist dark-money-funded clients. The firm has partnered with Labrador on at least two cases, so far. On July 11, Lincoln Wilson signed a contract with the firm to help in defending the new law criminalizing medical care for transgender youth. State taxpayers will be paying Wold’s firm an hourly rate of $495 per hour for lawyers and $80 for non-lawyers. Now that Wilson has left the AG’s office, ADF and C&K will be doing the kind of work that previous Idaho Attorneys General handled with staff attorneys. The federal district court in Idaho found on December 26 that the transgender ban violated the U.S. Constitution and that the State would likely lose the case at trial. That means the case will go to trial, ensuring more fees for C&K. Many of us predicted this outcome and one wonders why Labrador, who claimed he would give the Legislature the best legal advice so as to avoid losing cases, did not see this result coming. Needless to say, Labrador blamed the judge, not bad lawyering, for his loss. C&K contracted again with Labrador in November to look over a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to allow Idaho to enforce the strict prohibition against emergency maternal care, after he lost in the federal circuit court. C&K will get $10,000 for just reviewing his motion. The Wolds are doing well at the expense of Idaho taxpayers. Idaho should not allow its good name to be used for advancing the political or financial interests of out-of-state lawyers. Past practice in the Attorney General’s office is not to mix political agendas with the state’s legal business. The partnerships Labrador has formed with ADL and C&K lead one to wonder whose agenda is being served. All of these contracts seek to place documentation beyond the reach of Idaho’s public records law, so it may be tough to discover that important information. Jones During his first year as Idaho attorney general, Raul Labrador has placed most of his chips on the abortion issue in his quest for higher office. He has been aided and abetted, free of charge, by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful extreme-right legal organization in the nation’s capital that is intent on stamping out any perceived form of abortion across the entire country. ADF played a major role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Labrador began his term as AG with a March 27 opinion declaring that Idaho’s strictest in the nation abortion laws criminalized Idaho doctors for “providing abortion pills” and “either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services” or to obtain abortion pills. When the opinion was challenged in court, Labrador withdrew it, but refused to disavow it. Strangely enough, Idaho’s laws are so strict that the opinion was probably correct, even though seriously suspect under the U.S. Constitution. Since that time, Labrador has opposed a federal rule change that would protect the confidentiality of pregnant women’s medical records from snooping state attorneys general. The rule is designed to protect the privacy of women who travel out of state for pregnancy care. Labrador has also strenuously sought to enforce Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. With free help from ADF, Labrador was able to prevent women with dangerous pregnancy conditions from getting stabilizing medical care in Idaho’s hospital emergency rooms. The only exception is where an abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Women who need care for a much-wanted, but nonviable, pregnancy have been forced out of state in order to get the care they need. The emergency care issue will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The Supreme Court will also consider in April whether to place restrictions on the dispensation of an abortion pill, mifepristone, which prevents pregnancy if taken within 10 days. That case, which originated in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, resulted in a ruling supported and cheered by Labrador and ADF last year. The district judge severely restricted use of the drug, but those restrictions were lessened by a federal circuit court and then lifted by the Supreme Court. The Court will rule on the extent of restrictions, if any, that will apply to dispensation of mifepristone. Labrador has established quite a track record for cracking down on abortions, even when necessary to protect the life and health of women who are desperate to have a child. But nothing can compare to the move he made in that federal court in Amarillo last November. He and two other state AGs asked the court for permission to file a complaint that seeks to totally ban the use of mifepristone and a follow-up drug, misoprostol, throughout the country. Misoprostol is used to induce a miscarriage. The lengthy complaint, which was likely drafted by ADF and its allies, is chock full of questionable assertions, including preposterous claims that both drugs are dangerous to patients. In the press coverage I’ve seen about the complaint, the request to ban the use of misoprostol has been overlooked. The requested ban is significant because that drug has been used safely and effectively for decades. Yet, right there at page 102, Labrador and the other two AGs ask the judge to order federal agencies “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs.” That is, to ban the use of both drugs throughout the country. On January 12 the judge granted the motion to file the complaint, so it will presumably proceed on a separate track from the case to be considered by the Supreme Court in April. AFD was lucky to have the three states front for it because it would not have had standing to get the case into court on its own — it’s good to have pliable, accommodating state attorneys general. If misoprostol is taken off the market, women like Kristin Colson of Boise will face the heart-breaking situation of a wanted, but non-viable pregnancy, made worse by having no medication available to safely manage the miscarriage. Colson had an anembryonic pregnancy and opted for misoprostol, rather than surgery or waiting weeks for her body to pass the tissue. She was surprised when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. She was able to get the prescription filled elsewhere but, if Labrador were to prevail in his Texas lawsuit, there would be no legal source for the drug anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether Labrador is aware of the impact that his extreme actions have on women who want to have viable pregnancies, but can’t, or whether he is simply blinded by his political ambitions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Idaho voters react to his all-in gamble on the abortion issue. Jones Every legislative session brings some new “school choice” scheme that is touted as a way to improve elementary and secondary education in Idaho by offering more choices to families. Sometimes the plan is called a voucher, sometimes a stipend, sometimes a grant, sometimes a savings account. This year the scheme is called a “refundable tax credit.” What every plan has in common is the use of taxpayer money to subsidize private schooling, including religious and home schools. Because of the chronic failure of our legislatures in the last several decades to adequately fund public schools, the cost of such schemes will ultimately end up being forced upon local property taxpayers. The framers of the Idaho Constitution undoubtedly thought they had definitively dealt with the school choice issue. They placed a high priority on providing a foundational education for every Idaho child. The Constitution states: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The framers gave nary a hint that public monies could ever be used to pay for private education. Idaho law has always required parents to send their school-age kids to public schools. Parents can get around the compulsory attendance requirement by having their kids educated in a private school. So, Idaho parents have always had a school choice — they can either send their kids to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can pay out of pocket for any authorized form of private schooling. Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor the constitutional mandate to maintain a “thorough system” of education, primarily funded out of the state treasury. They would be profoundly amazed and saddened to learn that legislators have seriously and consistently violated this sacred duty. Thanks to the school funding lawsuit filed against the state in 1990, it is well known that Idaho legislators have failed to adequately fund the instructional side of public education during the last three decades. Because of pressure brought to bear by the Reclaim Idaho school funding initiative, the state significantly upped the ante of public funding in the special legislative session in 2022, but there is still a shortfall. Local school districts have been left with the choice of doing without adequate resources or saddling local property taxpayers to make up the difference. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had flat failed to fulfill its duty to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the giant share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. The cost of bringing existing buildings up to just “good” condition is about $1 billion, let alone funding new buildings for a growing population. School districts either have to try to educate kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds. The current “school choice” tax credit boondoggle, House Bill 447, would give private school parents $50 million in tax credits or payments right off of the top of the state budget. Providing a tax credit or deduction of taxes owing under the tax code, is using public monies for a private purpose. And, just who do you think will ultimately end up footing the bill? You got it, those long-suffering local property taxpayers who just don’t seem to have a strong voice in our legislature. The bill sponsors say the $50 million is a ceiling, but experience in other states shows that it is the first step of many on a costly escalator. We ought to simply follow the choice plan adopted by Idaho’s constitutional framers — finance a high-quality public school system with public money. And allow those who wish to opt for private, religious and home schooling to pay the expenses with their own funds. If they want Idaho taxpayers to fund their private education costs, they should try to change the Constitution instead of defying it. Many people have literally been moved by the ugly performance of Idaho’s Republican extremists in recent years. That is, significant numbers of teachers, librarians, doctors and others have moved out of the Gem State to escape the false claims and oppressive legislation conjured by the dysfunctional branch of Idaho’s GOP, now presided over by Dorothy Moon. On the other hand, that same wretched conduct has caused like-minded folk from across the country to move to our state, attracted by headlines that portray Idaho as a sanctuary for political zealots of every stripe. Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions. False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania. The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work. We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away. Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots. The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms for Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman. While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals,” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. In a special report that appeared in the January 30 issue of the Idaho Press, titled “Birds of a Feather,” the Adams Publishing Group indicates that political migration has become a national phenomenon in recent years, including Idaho. At least the moving companies are profiting. Idaho’s landmark Terrorist Control Act (TCA) will be rendered useless by passage of a bill recently introduced in the Idaho Senate. Among other things, the TCA makes it a serious felony for two or more people to conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the enjoyment of any constitutional right by the use of violence. Senate Bill 1220 would decriminalize any violent conspiracy that was not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization.” Violent acts like the bombings carried out by the Aryan Nations hate group in northern Idaho in 1986 could no longer be prosecuted under the TCA. Aryan Nations members exploded a pipe bomb at Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene on September 15, 1986, and set off three other bombs a few days later. Father Bill was shaken, but not physically injured, and there were no injuries sustained in the other blasts. The bombs were designed to intimidate and silence those like Father Bill who were exercising their constitutional right to speak out against the dangerous white supremacist group. Because the bombs did not result in bodily injury to Father Bill or others, Idaho law could not adequately punish the bombers for their violent actions. It was clear that Idaho needed to take action against violent domestic terrorists. As Idaho’s Attorney General, I proposed tough legislation in 1987, which failed in the House due to opposition from the National Rifle Association. I worked with the NRA and we were able to agree on strong language for the TCA, which remains on our law books today. The NRA proposed adding language from the federal Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which primarily targeted violent conspiracies by KKK members to prevent freed slaves from voting, speaking out, holding office and exercising other constitutional rights. The KKK Act language significantly improved and strengthened the TCA. The sponsor of SB1220 is a level-headed legislator who seems to have the misconception that the TCA, as written, could be used to prosecute school patrons. It simply would not happen, unless the patrons engaged in a violent conspiracy to deprive others of their constitutional rights. The KKK Act has been on the federal books since 1871 and I’m unaware of any case where non-intimidating, non-conspiring, non-violent school patrons have faced federal charges under that law. No inappropriate charges have been filed in Idaho under the TCA. In fact, the entire purpose of the TCA is to protect the constitutional rights of all Idahoans from violent conspiracists. That purpose is repeated throughout the present law. The problem with SB 1220 is that it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in an egregious situation like the Aryan Nation bombings in 1986, that the violent acts were “done in cooperation with any foreign terrorist organization.” Without that proof, the conspirators could not be held to account. The U.S. currently lists about 70 foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS-Mozambique. The chances that any of those groups would team up with conspirators in Idaho to commit violent acts is almost nil. The foreign cooperation requirement essentially guts the Terrorist Control Act. On the other hand, domestic terrorist incidents have increased dramatically in the United States in recent years. The Government Accountability Office reported last year that domestic terrorism-related cases increased 357% from 2013 to 2021. These are not cases involving foreign terrorist organizations. The 1986 Coeur d’Alene bombings finally awakened the entire state to the serious threat the Aryans posed to the safety of those in the area and to the image of the Gem State as a whole. Out of concern for the economic impact on commerce, the Idaho business community rose up in opposition to the group and its poisonous agenda. The TCA was enacted in response. With the growing threat of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and the consequent endangerment to the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens, this is not the time to neuter the TCA. That law was passed to rid our beautiful state of violent white supremacists. Let’s not put out the welcome mat for them. Judges are the heart of the American system of justice. Faith in our court system depends upon having judges who are competent and impartial. That, in turn, requires thorough vetting of judicial candidates to put the best qualified people on the bench. For over 50 years, Idaho has had procedures in place to ensure the appointment of highly qualified judges at every level of the court system. Magistrate judges, who handle misdemeanors and a wide range of specialty cases, are vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. District and appellate judges are thoroughly vetted by the non-political Idaho Judicial Council. The Council sends a list of up to 4 candidates for each position to the Governor for selection of the finalist. The system has worked well. Former Governor Butch Otter, who appointed over 55 district and appellate judges during his 12 years in office, regularly received praise from other governors across the country for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. During his 8 years as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, Roger Burdick received similar compliments from his high court colleagues from other states. While the appointment process is vitally important to a quality judiciary, it is critical that the state offer a compensation and retirement package that is attractive enough to bring in a significant number of judicial candidates. The package must be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for candidates who are making at least twice as much in private practice. That is where Idaho’s selection process has begun to fail. District court positions are the hardest to recruit for because of long hours, high stress and early burnout. Candidates must have 10 years of experience and most of those lawyers are getting close to their peak earning capacity. They are the highly qualified candidates we want and need to preside over our toughest, most challenging civil and criminal cases. Starting in 2021, the Judicial Council has averaged less than five applicants for the 16 district court openings. Previously, it was not unusual to get twice as many applicants for a vacancy. Part of the problem is that district court judges must stand for a possibly-contested election in the low turn-out primary every four years. Magistrates run every four years in a no-contest retention election. Magistrate openings, which pay $12,000 less than district court, generally get more than twice as many applicants. But compensation is the big problem with recruitment for district and appellate court positions. Idaho’s judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation. Last year we lost a talented Supreme Court Justice and a highly-regarded Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County because of the low pay. The pay for high court justices equates to $79 per hour, for district judges it is $72 per hour and for magistrate judges it is $69 per hour. In contrast, the Legislature often hires counsel to represent it in court for more than $470 per hour. In the last two years the Legislature has considered legislation to give a partisan slant to the Judicial Council process and to chip away at the retirement package that has previously attracted candidates to apply for district and appellate positions. They have never expected great wealth, but they have expected certainty as to the extent of the sacrifice they make in compensation in order to perform public service. To add insult to injury, judges were the only public employees who did not receive a 7% cost-of-living increase in 2022. Last January, Rep. Bruce Skaug, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed that judges “were robbed” for the slight. Unfortunately, the Legislature failed to provide restitution for the robbery. A good case could be made that the theft violated a provision of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting the reduction of judge’s compensation during their term of office, but that is for a later column. The fact is that we risk getting enough qualified candidates for judicial positions unless there is an immediate and substantial pay raise for all judges. It makes no sense to have judges deciding complicated cases that vitally affect the lives and fortunes of litigants where lawyers for the parties may well be receiving many times the $69 to $79 per hour that the judges are being paid. A 10% across-the-board increase for judges, in addition to any cost-of-living increase that other state employees might receive, is essential to get more highly-qualified lawyers to apply. And the Legislature should cease its tinkering with judicial election and retirement laws. As per the old saying, if we continue to pay peanuts to our judges, the judicial selection process may well be swamped by unqualified monkeys. Representative Russ Fulcher has failed to grasp that his repeated failure to support Ukraine in defending against Russia’s genocidal war is extremely harmful to America’s national security interests. Ukraine’s valiant fighters are shedding their blood to protect the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But their dogged defense has the side effect of bleeding and degrading Vladimir Putin’s war machine, reducing its threat against the United States and our allies. If the Ukrainians win, we won’t face the possibility of future hostilities with Russia. If they lose, we are in for continued conflict with Putin’s regime. Make no mistake, Putin is allying with China, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to try to take down America and its allies. Russia began using North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine in December and more are in the pipeline. But this is not the first dangerous flirtation between the two countries that has endangered the United States. North Korea would not have a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. and its Asian allies without the help of Russian scientists. Putin’s alliance with China and North Korea, called the Trilateral Imperialist Partnership, combines Russia’s nuclear arsenal, China’s economic and military power and North Korea’s lunacy into an extremely dangerous threat. A Russian win against Ukraine, would provide rocket fuel for this malevolent alliance. The stakes are exceedingly high. Perhaps a short refresher course would be helpful for Rep. Fulcher. After the Second World War, Russia gobbled up practically every country on its borders and conglomerated them into a totalitarian state called the Soviet Union. It was our mortal enemy for decades. During the Vietnam War, where I served in 1968-69, the Soviets supplied weapons to the communists that killed thousands of U.S. troops. President Reagan correctly called it the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet empire fell apart in 1991 and its citizens had a brief respite from state terror. In 2005, Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. He began working feverishly to recreate it, to seize former satellite countries, to enslave his people and do everything possible to break up America’s alliances and power around the world. Putin began hostilities against Ukraine in 2014, leading to the present barbarous war. Ukraine desperately needs massive military assistance from the U.S. and our NATO allies. We have a vital national interest in preventing Putin from winning his war of conquest. If he and his partners succeed, our NATO allies will be next in his sights and we will be obligated by treaty and our own vital security interests to join the war on their side. If Ukraine survives, it will provide a future NATO shield against Putin’s forces. Russ Fulcher does not seem to grasp the fact that aiding Ukraine is essential to America’s safety and security. In a December interview with columnist Chuck Malloy, Fulcher gave a rather garbled answer as to whether he would vote for further aid for Ukraine. He seemed to say that unless the President clarifies the Ukraine mission and addresses our southern border, it is “a deal-breaker” and “show-stopper” for him. It’s kind of like Congress telling FDR that no funding for the Normandy Invasion would be forthcoming unless the President clarified the mission and addressed some unrelated domestic problems. That’s really not the best way to protect our national security. If Fulcher needs clarity on the mission, he can bring up hundreds of news reports in which the President has outlined the mission and the drastic need for aid to achieve it by simply Googling “Biden calls for strong support for Ukraine.” Mention was made of the subject in two State of the Union speeches, which I assume Fulcher heard. Or, he could consult with Senator Jim Risch, who clearly understands the urgent need to help Ukraine, and protect the United States, in this critical moment. Risch told Malloy, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. If we abandon Ukraine...there will be major consequences...I believe it would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.” I’m hoping that with such high stakes, Fulcher can see the drastic need to support the American side of this ugly war. Prior to 2023, Idaho’s Attorneys General handled the State’s legal business without outside entanglements. During his first year in office, Raul Labrador has changed that non-interference policy. He has intertwined his chosen political priorities with out-of-state legal partners that have their own ideological axes to grind. One partner is a dark-money-funded group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that gives Idaho “free” legal representation. Another partner is a high-priced Washington law firm, Cooper & Kirk, that is currently charging Idaho taxpayers a rate of $495 per hour. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a Christian nationalist group that advances the most extreme anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations and its Church of Jesus Christ Christian in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF and Labrador have teamed up in three separate cases, so far. They are defending Idaho’s law criminalizing emergency room medical care for pregnant women, defending the Legislature’s transgender bathroom law and have meddled in a Washington State abortion pill case. Labrador has signed rather one-sided agreements with ADF to obtain their free legal help. If the State and ADF must pay the other side’s attorney fees, ADF is off the hook and the Idaho pays. If the other side must pay, the attorney fees are divided between the State and ADF. The State must consult with ADF in communicating with the media and is obligated to put out favorable publicity for ADF. Labrador is effectively giving Idaho’s stamp of approval to this extreme-right legal behemoth, which has 100 staff attorneys, about 5,000 lawyers in its network and nearly $100 million in revenues. One other item of interest is that Lincoln Wilson, who served in Labrador’s office until October, is now ADF’s representative in Idaho. Another lawyer, Theo Wold, who served as Labrador’s much ballyhooed Solicitor General, also left the office in October. Wold campaigned hard for Labrador’s election in 2022 and was one of his first hires. A former official in the Trump White House, Wold is a Christian nationalist and supporter of the Great Replacement conspiracy. Although he is gone from Labrador’s office, he will not soon be forgotten. His wife, Megan, is a member of the Washington law firm that is getting Idaho tax dollars to advance Labrador’s personal political agenda. Ms. Wold’s firm, Cooper & Kirk (C&K), is the go-to firm for extremist dark-money-funded clients. The firm has partnered with Labrador on at least two cases, so far. On July 11, Lincoln Wilson signed a contract with the firm to help in defending the new law criminalizing medical care for transgender youth. State taxpayers will be paying Wold’s firm an hourly rate of $495 per hour for lawyers and $80 for non-lawyers. Now that Wilson has left the AG’s office, ADF and C&K will be doing the kind of work that previous Idaho Attorneys General handled with staff attorneys. The federal district court in Idaho found on December 26 that the transgender ban violated the U.S. Constitution and that the State would likely lose the case at trial. That means the case will go to trial, ensuring more fees for C&K. Many of us predicted this outcome and one wonders why Labrador, who claimed he would give the Legislature the best legal advice so as to avoid losing cases, did not see this result coming. Needless to say, Labrador blamed the judge, not bad lawyering, for his loss. C&K contracted again with Labrador in November to look over a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to allow Idaho to enforce the strict prohibition against emergency maternal care, after he lost in the federal circuit court. C&K will get $10,000 for just reviewing his motion. The Wolds are doing well at the expense of Idaho taxpayers. Idaho should not allow its good name to be used for advancing the political or financial interests of out-of-state lawyers. Past practice in the Attorney General’s office is not to mix political agendas with the state’s legal business. The partnerships Labrador has formed with ADL and C&K lead one to wonder whose agenda is being served. All of these contracts seek to place documentation beyond the reach of Idaho’s public records law, so it may be tough to discover that important information. Jones During his first year as Idaho attorney general, Raul Labrador has placed most of his chips on the abortion issue in his quest for higher office. He has been aided and abetted, free of charge, by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful extreme-right legal organization in the nation’s capital that is intent on stamping out any perceived form of abortion across the entire country. ADF played a major role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Labrador began his term as AG with a March 27 opinion declaring that Idaho’s strictest in the nation abortion laws criminalized Idaho doctors for “providing abortion pills” and “either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services” or to obtain abortion pills. When the opinion was challenged in court, Labrador withdrew it, but refused to disavow it. Strangely enough, Idaho’s laws are so strict that the opinion was probably correct, even though seriously suspect under the U.S. Constitution. Since that time, Labrador has opposed a federal rule change that would protect the confidentiality of pregnant women’s medical records from snooping state attorneys general. The rule is designed to protect the privacy of women who travel out of state for pregnancy care. Labrador has also strenuously sought to enforce Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. With free help from ADF, Labrador was able to prevent women with dangerous pregnancy conditions from getting stabilizing medical care in Idaho’s hospital emergency rooms. The only exception is where an abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Women who need care for a much-wanted, but nonviable, pregnancy have been forced out of state in order to get the care they need. The emergency care issue will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The Supreme Court will also consider in April whether to place restrictions on the dispensation of an abortion pill, mifepristone, which prevents pregnancy if taken within 10 days. That case, which originated in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, resulted in a ruling supported and cheered by Labrador and ADF last year. The district judge severely restricted use of the drug, but those restrictions were lessened by a federal circuit court and then lifted by the Supreme Court. The Court will rule on the extent of restrictions, if any, that will apply to dispensation of mifepristone. Labrador has established quite a track record for cracking down on abortions, even when necessary to protect the life and health of women who are desperate to have a child. But nothing can compare to the move he made in that federal court in Amarillo last November. He and two other state AGs asked the court for permission to file a complaint that seeks to totally ban the use of mifepristone and a follow-up drug, misoprostol, throughout the country. Misoprostol is used to induce a miscarriage. The lengthy complaint, which was likely drafted by ADF and its allies, is chock full of questionable assertions, including preposterous claims that both drugs are dangerous to patients. In the press coverage I’ve seen about the complaint, the request to ban the use of misoprostol has been overlooked. The requested ban is significant because that drug has been used safely and effectively for decades. Yet, right there at page 102, Labrador and the other two AGs ask the judge to order federal agencies “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs.” That is, to ban the use of both drugs throughout the country. On January 12 the judge granted the motion to file the complaint, so it will presumably proceed on a separate track from the case to be considered by the Supreme Court in April. AFD was lucky to have the three states front for it because it would not have had standing to get the case into court on its own — it’s good to have pliable, accommodating state attorneys general. If misoprostol is taken off the market, women like Kristin Colson of Boise will face the heart-breaking situation of a wanted, but non-viable pregnancy, made worse by having no medication available to safely manage the miscarriage. Colson had an anembryonic pregnancy and opted for misoprostol, rather than surgery or waiting weeks for her body to pass the tissue. She was surprised when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. She was able to get the prescription filled elsewhere but, if Labrador were to prevail in his Texas lawsuit, there would be no legal source for the drug anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether Labrador is aware of the impact that his extreme actions have on women who want to have viable pregnancies, but can’t, or whether he is simply blinded by his political ambitions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Idaho voters react to his all-in gamble on the abortion issue. Jones Every legislative session brings some new “school choice” scheme that is touted as a way to improve elementary and secondary education in Idaho by offering more choices to families. Sometimes the plan is called a voucher, sometimes a stipend, sometimes a grant, sometimes a savings account. This year the scheme is called a “refundable tax credit.” What every plan has in common is the use of taxpayer money to subsidize private schooling, including religious and home schools. Because of the chronic failure of our legislatures in the last several decades to adequately fund public schools, the cost of such schemes will ultimately end up being forced upon local property taxpayers. The framers of the Idaho Constitution undoubtedly thought they had definitively dealt with the school choice issue. They placed a high priority on providing a foundational education for every Idaho child. The Constitution states: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The framers gave nary a hint that public monies could ever be used to pay for private education. Idaho law has always required parents to send their school-age kids to public schools. Parents can get around the compulsory attendance requirement by having their kids educated in a private school. So, Idaho parents have always had a school choice — they can either send their kids to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can pay out of pocket for any authorized form of private schooling. Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor the constitutional mandate to maintain a “thorough system” of education, primarily funded out of the state treasury. They would be profoundly amazed and saddened to learn that legislators have seriously and consistently violated this sacred duty. Thanks to the school funding lawsuit filed against the state in 1990, it is well known that Idaho legislators have failed to adequately fund the instructional side of public education during the last three decades. Because of pressure brought to bear by the Reclaim Idaho school funding initiative, the state significantly upped the ante of public funding in the special legislative session in 2022, but there is still a shortfall. Local school districts have been left with the choice of doing without adequate resources or saddling local property taxpayers to make up the difference. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had flat failed to fulfill its duty to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the giant share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. The cost of bringing existing buildings up to just “good” condition is about $1 billion, let alone funding new buildings for a growing population. School districts either have to try to educate kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds. The current “school choice” tax credit boondoggle, House Bill 447, would give private school parents $50 million in tax credits or payments right off of the top of the state budget. Providing a tax credit or deduction of taxes owing under the tax code, is using public monies for a private purpose. And, just who do you think will ultimately end up footing the bill? You got it, those long-suffering local property taxpayers who just don’t seem to have a strong voice in our legislature. The bill sponsors say the $50 million is a ceiling, but experience in other states shows that it is the first step of many on a costly escalator. We ought to simply follow the choice plan adopted by Idaho’s constitutional framers — finance a high-quality public school system with public money. And allow those who wish to opt for private, religious and home schooling to pay the expenses with their own funds. If they want Idaho taxpayers to fund their private education costs, they should try to change the Constitution instead of defying it. Many people have literally been moved by the ugly performance of Idaho’s Republican extremists in recent years. That is, significant numbers of teachers, librarians, doctors and others have moved out of the Gem State to escape the false claims and oppressive legislation conjured by the dysfunctional branch of Idaho’s GOP, now presided over by Dorothy Moon. On the other hand, that same wretched conduct has caused like-minded folk from across the country to move to our state, attracted by headlines that portray Idaho as a sanctuary for political zealots of every stripe. Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions. False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania. The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work. We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away. Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots. The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms for Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman. While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals,” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. In a special report that appeared in the January 30 issue of the Idaho Press, titled “Birds of a Feather,” the Adams Publishing Group indicates that political migration has become a national phenomenon in recent years, including Idaho. At least the moving companies are profiting. Idaho’s landmark Terrorist Control Act (TCA) will be rendered useless by passage of a bill recently introduced in the Idaho Senate. Among other things, the TCA makes it a serious felony for two or more people to conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the enjoyment of any constitutional right by the use of violence. Senate Bill 1220 would decriminalize any violent conspiracy that was not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization.” Violent acts like the bombings carried out by the Aryan Nations hate group in northern Idaho in 1986 could no longer be prosecuted under the TCA. Aryan Nations members exploded a pipe bomb at Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene on September 15, 1986, and set off three other bombs a few days later. Father Bill was shaken, but not physically injured, and there were no injuries sustained in the other blasts. The bombs were designed to intimidate and silence those like Father Bill who were exercising their constitutional right to speak out against the dangerous white supremacist group. Because the bombs did not result in bodily injury to Father Bill or others, Idaho law could not adequately punish the bombers for their violent actions. It was clear that Idaho needed to take action against violent domestic terrorists. As Idaho’s Attorney General, I proposed tough legislation in 1987, which failed in the House due to opposition from the National Rifle Association. I worked with the NRA and we were able to agree on strong language for the TCA, which remains on our law books today. The NRA proposed adding language from the federal Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which primarily targeted violent conspiracies by KKK members to prevent freed slaves from voting, speaking out, holding office and exercising other constitutional rights. The KKK Act language significantly improved and strengthened the TCA. The sponsor of SB1220 is a level-headed legislator who seems to have the misconception that the TCA, as written, could be used to prosecute school patrons. It simply would not happen, unless the patrons engaged in a violent conspiracy to deprive others of their constitutional rights. The KKK Act has been on the federal books since 1871 and I’m unaware of any case where non-intimidating, non-conspiring, non-violent school patrons have faced federal charges under that law. No inappropriate charges have been filed in Idaho under the TCA. In fact, the entire purpose of the TCA is to protect the constitutional rights of all Idahoans from violent conspiracists. That purpose is repeated throughout the present law. The problem with SB 1220 is that it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in an egregious situation like the Aryan Nation bombings in 1986, that the violent acts were “done in cooperation with any foreign terrorist organization.” Without that proof, the conspirators could not be held to account. The U.S. currently lists about 70 foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS-Mozambique. The chances that any of those groups would team up with conspirators in Idaho to commit violent acts is almost nil. The foreign cooperation requirement essentially guts the Terrorist Control Act. On the other hand, domestic terrorist incidents have increased dramatically in the United States in recent years. The Government Accountability Office reported last year that domestic terrorism-related cases increased 357% from 2013 to 2021. These are not cases involving foreign terrorist organizations. The 1986 Coeur d’Alene bombings finally awakened the entire state to the serious threat the Aryans posed to the safety of those in the area and to the image of the Gem State as a whole. Out of concern for the economic impact on commerce, the Idaho business community rose up in opposition to the group and its poisonous agenda. The TCA was enacted in response. With the growing threat of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and the consequent endangerment to the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens, this is not the time to neuter the TCA. That law was passed to rid our beautiful state of violent white supremacists. Let’s not put out the welcome mat for them. Judges are the heart of the American system of justice. Faith in our court system depends upon having judges who are competent and impartial. That, in turn, requires thorough vetting of judicial candidates to put the best qualified people on the bench. For over 50 years, Idaho has had procedures in place to ensure the appointment of highly qualified judges at every level of the court system. Magistrate judges, who handle misdemeanors and a wide range of specialty cases, are vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. District and appellate judges are thoroughly vetted by the non-political Idaho Judicial Council. The Council sends a list of up to 4 candidates for each position to the Governor for selection of the finalist. The system has worked well. Former Governor Butch Otter, who appointed over 55 district and appellate judges during his 12 years in office, regularly received praise from other governors across the country for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. During his 8 years as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, Roger Burdick received similar compliments from his high court colleagues from other states. While the appointment process is vitally important to a quality judiciary, it is critical that the state offer a compensation and retirement package that is attractive enough to bring in a significant number of judicial candidates. The package must be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for candidates who are making at least twice as much in private practice. That is where Idaho’s selection process has begun to fail. District court positions are the hardest to recruit for because of long hours, high stress and early burnout. Candidates must have 10 years of experience and most of those lawyers are getting close to their peak earning capacity. They are the highly qualified candidates we want and need to preside over our toughest, most challenging civil and criminal cases. Starting in 2021, the Judicial Council has averaged less than five applicants for the 16 district court openings. Previously, it was not unusual to get twice as many applicants for a vacancy. Part of the problem is that district court judges must stand for a possibly-contested election in the low turn-out primary every four years. Magistrates run every four years in a no-contest retention election. Magistrate openings, which pay $12,000 less than district court, generally get more than twice as many applicants. But compensation is the big problem with recruitment for district and appellate court positions. Idaho’s judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation. Last year we lost a talented Supreme Court Justice and a highly-regarded Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County because of the low pay. The pay for high court justices equates to $79 per hour, for district judges it is $72 per hour and for magistrate judges it is $69 per hour. In contrast, the Legislature often hires counsel to represent it in court for more than $470 per hour. In the last two years the Legislature has considered legislation to give a partisan slant to the Judicial Council process and to chip away at the retirement package that has previously attracted candidates to apply for district and appellate positions. They have never expected great wealth, but they have expected certainty as to the extent of the sacrifice they make in compensation in order to perform public service. To add insult to injury, judges were the only public employees who did not receive a 7% cost-of-living increase in 2022. Last January, Rep. Bruce Skaug, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed that judges “were robbed” for the slight. Unfortunately, the Legislature failed to provide restitution for the robbery. A good case could be made that the theft violated a provision of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting the reduction of judge’s compensation during their term of office, but that is for a later column. The fact is that we risk getting enough qualified candidates for judicial positions unless there is an immediate and substantial pay raise for all judges. It makes no sense to have judges deciding complicated cases that vitally affect the lives and fortunes of litigants where lawyers for the parties may well be receiving many times the $69 to $79 per hour that the judges are being paid. A 10% across-the-board increase for judges, in addition to any cost-of-living increase that other state employees might receive, is essential to get more highly-qualified lawyers to apply. And the Legislature should cease its tinkering with judicial election and retirement laws. As per the old saying, if we continue to pay peanuts to our judges, the judicial selection process may well be swamped by unqualified monkeys. Representative Russ Fulcher has failed to grasp that his repeated failure to support Ukraine in defending against Russia’s genocidal war is extremely harmful to America’s national security interests. Ukraine’s valiant fighters are shedding their blood to protect the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But their dogged defense has the side effect of bleeding and degrading Vladimir Putin’s war machine, reducing its threat against the United States and our allies. If the Ukrainians win, we won’t face the possibility of future hostilities with Russia. If they lose, we are in for continued conflict with Putin’s regime. Make no mistake, Putin is allying with China, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to try to take down America and its allies. Russia began using North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine in December and more are in the pipeline. But this is not the first dangerous flirtation between the two countries that has endangered the United States. North Korea would not have a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. and its Asian allies without the help of Russian scientists. Putin’s alliance with China and North Korea, called the Trilateral Imperialist Partnership, combines Russia’s nuclear arsenal, China’s economic and military power and North Korea’s lunacy into an extremely dangerous threat. A Russian win against Ukraine, would provide rocket fuel for this malevolent alliance. The stakes are exceedingly high. Perhaps a short refresher course would be helpful for Rep. Fulcher. After the Second World War, Russia gobbled up practically every country on its borders and conglomerated them into a totalitarian state called the Soviet Union. It was our mortal enemy for decades. During the Vietnam War, where I served in 1968-69, the Soviets supplied weapons to the communists that killed thousands of U.S. troops. President Reagan correctly called it the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet empire fell apart in 1991 and its citizens had a brief respite from state terror. In 2005, Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. He began working feverishly to recreate it, to seize former satellite countries, to enslave his people and do everything possible to break up America’s alliances and power around the world. Putin began hostilities against Ukraine in 2014, leading to the present barbarous war. Ukraine desperately needs massive military assistance from the U.S. and our NATO allies. We have a vital national interest in preventing Putin from winning his war of conquest. If he and his partners succeed, our NATO allies will be next in his sights and we will be obligated by treaty and our own vital security interests to join the war on their side. If Ukraine survives, it will provide a future NATO shield against Putin’s forces. Russ Fulcher does not seem to grasp the fact that aiding Ukraine is essential to America’s safety and security. In a December interview with columnist Chuck Malloy, Fulcher gave a rather garbled answer as to whether he would vote for further aid for Ukraine. He seemed to say that unless the President clarifies the Ukraine mission and addresses our southern border, it is “a deal-breaker” and “show-stopper” for him. It’s kind of like Congress telling FDR that no funding for the Normandy Invasion would be forthcoming unless the President clarified the mission and addressed some unrelated domestic problems. That’s really not the best way to protect our national security. If Fulcher needs clarity on the mission, he can bring up hundreds of news reports in which the President has outlined the mission and the drastic need for aid to achieve it by simply Googling “Biden calls for strong support for Ukraine.” Mention was made of the subject in two State of the Union speeches, which I assume Fulcher heard. Or, he could consult with Senator Jim Risch, who clearly understands the urgent need to help Ukraine, and protect the United States, in this critical moment. Risch told Malloy, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. If we abandon Ukraine...there will be major consequences...I believe it would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.” I’m hoping that with such high stakes, Fulcher can see the drastic need to support the American side of this ugly war. Prior to 2023, Idaho’s Attorneys General handled the State’s legal business without outside entanglements. During his first year in office, Raul Labrador has changed that non-interference policy. He has intertwined his chosen political priorities with out-of-state legal partners that have their own ideological axes to grind. One partner is a dark-money-funded group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that gives Idaho “free” legal representation. Another partner is a high-priced Washington law firm, Cooper & Kirk, that is currently charging Idaho taxpayers a rate of $495 per hour. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a Christian nationalist group that advances the most extreme anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations and its Church of Jesus Christ Christian in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF and Labrador have teamed up in three separate cases, so far. They are defending Idaho’s law criminalizing emergency room medical care for pregnant women, defending the Legislature’s transgender bathroom law and have meddled in a Washington State abortion pill case. Labrador has signed rather one-sided agreements with ADF to obtain their free legal help. If the State and ADF must pay the other side’s attorney fees, ADF is off the hook and the Idaho pays. If the other side must pay, the attorney fees are divided between the State and ADF. The State must consult with ADF in communicating with the media and is obligated to put out favorable publicity for ADF. Labrador is effectively giving Idaho’s stamp of approval to this extreme-right legal behemoth, which has 100 staff attorneys, about 5,000 lawyers in its network and nearly $100 million in revenues. One other item of interest is that Lincoln Wilson, who served in Labrador’s office until October, is now ADF’s representative in Idaho. Another lawyer, Theo Wold, who served as Labrador’s much ballyhooed Solicitor General, also left the office in October. Wold campaigned hard for Labrador’s election in 2022 and was one of his first hires. A former official in the Trump White House, Wold is a Christian nationalist and supporter of the Great Replacement conspiracy. Although he is gone from Labrador’s office, he will not soon be forgotten. His wife, Megan, is a member of the Washington law firm that is getting Idaho tax dollars to advance Labrador’s personal political agenda. Ms. Wold’s firm, Cooper & Kirk (C&K), is the go-to firm for extremist dark-money-funded clients. The firm has partnered with Labrador on at least two cases, so far. On July 11, Lincoln Wilson signed a contract with the firm to help in defending the new law criminalizing medical care for transgender youth. State taxpayers will be paying Wold’s firm an hourly rate of $495 per hour for lawyers and $80 for non-lawyers. Now that Wilson has left the AG’s office, ADF and C&K will be doing the kind of work that previous Idaho Attorneys General handled with staff attorneys. The federal district court in Idaho found on December 26 that the transgender ban violated the U.S. Constitution and that the State would likely lose the case at trial. That means the case will go to trial, ensuring more fees for C&K. Many of us predicted this outcome and one wonders why Labrador, who claimed he would give the Legislature the best legal advice so as to avoid losing cases, did not see this result coming. Needless to say, Labrador blamed the judge, not bad lawyering, for his loss. C&K contracted again with Labrador in November to look over a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to allow Idaho to enforce the strict prohibition against emergency maternal care, after he lost in the federal circuit court. C&K will get $10,000 for just reviewing his motion. The Wolds are doing well at the expense of Idaho taxpayers. Idaho should not allow its good name to be used for advancing the political or financial interests of out-of-state lawyers. Past practice in the Attorney General’s office is not to mix political agendas with the state’s legal business. The partnerships Labrador has formed with ADL and C&K lead one to wonder whose agenda is being served. All of these contracts seek to place documentation beyond the reach of Idaho’s public records law, so it may be tough to discover that important information. Jim Jones served eight years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). His columns are collected at JJCommonTater.com . Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!
Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal has reaffirmed the growing strength of the US-India ties, highlighting the deepening relationship between the two countries across trade, investment, and strategic sectors. Speaking at the 20 th edition of the CNBC-TV18 India Business Leaders Awards in Mumbai on Friday, December 7, 2024, Goyal expressed confidence in the future of the partnership, which he described as having flourished over the past decade under successive US administrations. "Over the last 10 years, the friendship with the US has only got better," Goyal stated, highlighting the consistency and durability of the bilateral relationship, regardless of the political leadership in either country. India’s Commerce Minister also added, "The next four years are going to be a great time for the US-India partnership," reflecting his optimism about the path ahead. His remarks come weeks ahead of the inauguration of the Trump administration. Addressing concerns about trade imbalances, Goyal noted that India's trade with the US remains relatively balanced, with a slight surplus in goods. However, he pointed out that this trade surplus is counterbalanced by substantial investments India makes in the US, particularly in education, technology, and defence. "We spend nearly $20 billion on students studying in US universities. We also make significant defence purchases and technology payments to the US," he explained, underscoring the multifaceted economic relationship between the two nations. On the topic of trade and tariffs, Goyal defended India's business practices, stating, "India is one country that is very transparent in its business practices. We have no hidden subsidies or incentives that distort the export market." He also clarified that the punitive tariffs mentioned by former President Donald Trump were aimed at countries like Canada, Mexico, and China, not specifically at India. Watch the video for more
Patriots QB Drake Maye questionable to return after suffering head injury vs. Chargers FOXBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) — Patriots rookie quarterback Drake Maye is questionable to return with a head injury after taking a blow to the helmet in the first quarter of New England’s matchup with the Los Angeles Chargers. Maye was scrambling near the sideline on third down of the Patriots’ first possession of the game when he was hit by Chargers cornerback Cam Hart. Maye stayed down on the turf for several seconds before eventually getting up and jogging off the field on his own power. He briefly sat on the bench before going to the medical tent for evaluation. Corbin Burnes and Arizona Diamondbacks agree to $210 million, 6-year deal, AP source says PHOENIX (AP) — Corbin Burnes and the Arizona Diamondbacks have agreed to a $210 million, six-year contract, a person familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press. The person spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because the deal was pending a successful physical. The 30-year-old Burnes was perhaps the top free agent pitcher on the market after going 15-9 with a 2.92 ERA for Baltimore last season. The Orioles acquired the right-hander in a February trade after he spent his first six major league seasons with the Milwaukee Brewers. Eli Manning and Antonio Gates are among the finalists for the Pro Football Hall of Fame Two-time Super Bowl MVP Eli Manning, former Defensive Players of the Year Luke Kuechly and Terrell Suggs, and prolific tight end Antonio Gates are among the finalists for the 2025 Pro Football Hall of Fame class. The Hall on Saturday announced the names of the 15 modern-era finalists who advanced from a group of 25 to the final stage of voting. The selection committee will vote next month to pick the class of between three and five modern-era players that will be announced the week of the Super Bowl. NBA coaches react with dismay over firing of 2-time coach of the year Mike Brown ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Not even two years ago, Rick Carlisle publicly lauded Mike Brown for the job he did on the way to winning the NBA’s coach of the year award. And on Friday, Carlisle was among the coaches reacting with dismay that Brown was fired. The Sacramento Kings dismissed Brown on Friday, with the team off to a 13-18 start this season and mired toward the bottom of the Western Conference — despite back-to-back winning seasons, something that franchise hadn’t managed in nearly two decades. Panthers place 1,000-yard rusher Chuba Hubbard on IR for final 2 games with strained calf CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — The Carolina Panthers have shut down leading rusher Chuba Hubbard for the final two games of the season because of a strained calf. He was placed on injured reserve Saturday. Hubbard was limited in practice Friday with a knee injury and was listed as questionable to play Sunday against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. After practice, Hubbard complained of pain and had an MRI, which revealed a grade two calf strain, according to the team. Hubbard ran for 1,195 yards and 10 touchdowns this season. He becomes the third Panthers running back to be placed on injured reserve this season, joining Miles Sanders and rookie Jonathan Brooks. Georgia quarterback Carson Beck announces plan to enter NFL draft after season-ending elbow injury Georgia quarterback Carson Beck has announced his plans to enter the NFL draft, five days after having season-ending elbow surgery. The fifth-year senior made his NFL plans official on social media. Beck suffered a right elbow injury in the first half of the Bulldogs’ 22-19 overtime win over Texas in the Southeastern Conference championship game on Dec. 7. Beck had surgery on Monday to repair his ulnar collateral ligament in the elbow. He is expected to begin throwing next spring. Backup Gunner Stockton will make his first start in the Sugar Bowl against Notre Dame on Wednesday. Injured Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts won't play Sunday against Dallas PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Injured Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts won't play Sunday against Dallas. Hurts is still in the NFL concussion protocol. The Eagles will turn to backup Kenny Pickett on Sunday because Hurts is dealing with the lingering effects of a concussion suffered against Washington. Hurts was injured early at Washington after his head slammed against the ground on one run and he was hit in the helmet by Commanders linebacker Frankie Luvu at the end of another. Hurts isn’t healthy enough to play just yet. McCord throws for 453 yards, 5 TDs in No. 22 Syracuse's 52-35 Holiday Bowl win over Washington State SAN DIEGO (AP) — Kyle McCord threw for 453 yards and five touchdowns to break Deshaun Watson’s Atlantic Coast Conference season passing record and lead No. 22 Syracuse to a 52-35 victory over depleted-yet-scrappy Washington State in the Holiday Bowl on Friday night. LeQuint Allen rushed for 120 yards and two touchdowns for his second straight 1,000-yard season for the Orange (10-3), who had their first 10-win season since 2018. Fran Brown joined Paul Pasqualoni (1991) as the only Orange coaches since World War II to win 10 game in their first season. The Cougars (8-5) lost their fourth straight game but were spirited despite losing coach Jake Dickert to Wake Forest, quarterback John Mateer to Oklahoma, both coordinators and the quarterbacks and running backs coach. Southern California overcomes 17-point deficit to beat Texas A&M 35-31 in Las Vegas Bowl LAS VEGAS (AP) — Jayden Maiava threw a 7-yard touchdown pass to tight end Kyle Ford with eight seconds left to give Southern California a 35-31 victory over Texas A&M in the Las Vegas Bowl on Friday night. A graduate of Liberty High School in nearby Henderson and a transfer from UNLV, Maiava helped the Trojans (7-6) overcome a 17-point deficit. After Texas A&M quarterback Marcel Reed raced 19 yards for a touchdown with 1:49 remaining to regain the lead, Maiava drove Southern California 75 yards in 10 plays for the winning score.The Aggies (8-5) opened the third quarter by scoring 17 straight points to take a 24-7 lead. Taylen Green leads Arkansas to 39-26 victory over Texas Tech in the Liberty Bowl MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — Taylen Green threw for 341 yards and two touchdowns and ran for 81 yards in Arkansas’ 39-26 victory over Texas Tech on Friday night in the Liberty Bowl. Green completed 11 of 21 passes and Arkansas (7-6) had 573 yards of total offense. J’Koby Williams rushed for 123 yards and a TD for Texas Tech (8-5). Will Hammond threw for 280 yards and a touchdown. The Red Raiders took a shot before game time when leading running back Tahj Brooks, who rushed for 1,505 yards, opted not to play for “personal reasons.” The first half was highlighted by big scoring plays, including a 54-yard run by Williams and a 94-yard pass from Green to receiver Dazmin James, the longest pass play in Liberty Bowl history.The S&P 500 rose 0.3%. The benchmark index's 1.7% gain for the week erased most of its loss from last week. The Dow rose 1% as it nudged past its most recent high set last week, and the Nasdaq composite rose 0.2%. Markets have been volatile over the last few weeks, losing ground in the runup to elections in November, then surging following Donald Trump's victory, before falling again. The S&P 500 has been steadily rising throughout this week to within close range of its record. It's now within about 0.5% of its all-time high set last week. "Overall, market behavior has normalized following an intense few weeks," said Mark Hackett, chief of investment research at Nationwide, in a statement. Several retailers jumped after giving Wall Street encouraging financial updates. Gap soared 12.8% after handily beating analysts' third-quarter earnings and revenue expectations, while raising its own revenue forecast for the year. Discount retailer Ross Stores rose 2.2% after raising its earnings forecast for the year. EchoStar fell 2.8% after DirecTV called off its purchase of that company's Dish Network unit. Smaller company stocks had some of the biggest gains. The Russell 2000 index rose 1.8%. A majority of stocks in the S&P 500 gained ground, but those gains were kept in check by slumps for several big technology companies. Nvidia fell 3.2%. Its pricey valuation makes it among the heaviest influences on whether the broader market gains or loses ground. The company has grown into a nearly $3.6 trillion behemoth because of demand for its chips used in artificial-intelligence technology. Intuit, which makes TurboTax and other accounting software, fell 5.7%. It gave investors a quarterly earnings forecast that fell short of analysts' expectations. Facebook owner Meta Platforms fell 0.7% following a decision by the Supreme Court to allow a multibillion-dollar class action investors' lawsuit to proceed against the company. It stems from the privacy scandal involving the Cambridge Analytica political consulting firm. All told, the S&P 500 rose 20.63 points to 5,969.34. The Dow climbed 426.16 points to 44,296.51, and the Nasdaq picked up 42.65 points to close at 2,406.67. European markets closed mostly higher and Asian markets ended mixed. Crude oil prices rose. Treasury yields held relatively steady in the bond market. The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 4.41% from 4.42% late Thursday. In the crypto market, bitcoin hovered around $99,000, according to CoinDesk. It has more than doubled this year and first surpassed the $99,000 level on Thursday. Retailers remained a big focus for investors this week amid close scrutiny on consumer spending habits headed into the holiday shopping season. Walmart, the nation's largest retailer, reported a quarter of strong sales and gave investors an encouraging financial forecast. Target, though, reported weaker earnings than analysts' expected and its forecast disappointed Wall Street. Consumer spending has fueled economic growth, despite a persistent squeeze from inflation and high borrowing costs. Inflation has been easing and the Federal Reserve has started trimming its benchmark interest rates. That is likely to help relieve pressure on consumers, but any major shift in spending could prompt the Fed to reassess its path ahead on interest rates. Also, any big reversals on the rate of inflation could curtail spending. Consumer sentiment remains strong, according to the University of Michigan's consumer sentiment index. It revised its latest figure for November to 71.8 from an initial reading of 73 earlier this month, though economists expected a slight increase. It's still up from 70.5 in October. The survey also showed that consumers' inflation expectations for the year ahead fell slightly to 2.6%, which is the lowest reading since December of 2020. Wall Street will get another update on how consumers feel when the business group The Conference Board releases its monthly consumer confidence survey on Tuesday. A key inflation update will come on Wednesday when the U.S. releases its October personal consumption expenditures index. The PCE is the Fed's preferred measure of inflation and this will be the last PCE reading prior to the central bank's meeting in December.
Notre Dame Coaches And Players Discuss Georgia Matchup In Sugar Bowl
None
World News Live: Welcome to our World News live blog, your go-to source for instant updates on major events across the globe. Whether it's political shifts, economic trends, environmental crises, or international conflicts, we deliver real-time reports to keep you informed and engaged with the latest global developments. Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated live blog and has not been edited by Hindustan Times staff. ...Read More World News Live : Price William ‘monitoring’ probe into theft at royal Windsor Castle estate: ReportThe connections are clear between the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Carolina Panthers, longtime NFC South rivals. The teams get together for a meeting on Sunday in Charlotte and showed recent signs they can play with any team. "It's an NFC South battle," Buccaneers coach Todd Bowles said. "All of them are going to be hard, none of them (are) going to be easy. ... They're playing pretty good football. They missed some games here and there, but they're playing very good football. It's going to be a tough battle." Few introductions are needed on Sunday, as first-year Panthers coach Dave Canales came to Carolina after serving as Buccaneers offensive coordinator a season ago. Canales' prized pupil last season, Tampa Bay quarterback Baker Mayfield was with the Panthers for part of the 2022 campaign. "There's some familiarity," Canales said of his connection to the Buccaneers. "Knowing coach Bowles, he's got a really sophisticated system and he attacks each team with a specific game plan. There's some principles that carry over. I know that he's going to have some things up his sleeve." The Buccaneers (5-6) playing a division opponent for the first time since an Oct. 27 loss to the Atlanta Falcons. The goal will be notching back-to-back wins for the first time since the first two weeks of the season. Four different ball-carriers, including Mayfield, found the end zone on the ground during a 30-7 drubbing of the New York Giants last Sunday. Mayfield also completed 24 of 30 passes for 294 yards. "For me, the biggest thing was blocking and tackling," Bowles said of what his team did well last weekend. "We cleaned up the fundamental and technique part of it." Star wideout Mike Evans was back in action for Tampa Bay following a three-game absence due to a hamstring injury. He finished with five receptions for 68 yards against the Giants and now gets a crack at a Carolina team allowing a league-high 30.9 points per game this season. However, the Panthers have tightened up their play as of late, winning two games in a row before hanging with the two-time defending champion Kansas City Chiefs in a 30-27 setback last Sunday. The outing against Kansas City may have been the most efficient performance of Panthers quarterback Bryce Young's two-year career. Young completed 21 of 35 passes for 263 yards and one score without throwing a pick. "It's not all Bryce, it's the whole unit," Canales said. "It's a collective effort, but he certainly needs to be the voice and driver of that." Wide receiver Jalen Coker (quadriceps), tight end Ja'Tavion Sanders (neck) and safety Lonnie Johnson (personal) were all missing from practice on Wednesday for Carolina. Defensive end LaBryan Ray is dealing with a hand issue and was among those limited. Safety Jordan Whitehead (pectoral) was one of four Buccaneers to miss practice on Wednesday. Evans practiced in full. Carolina and Tampa Bay might as well get used to each other, as the two teams will collide again in Week 17. --Field Level Media
Millionaire Investors Are Betting Big on This Next-Gen Blockchain TokenNone
WASHINGTON (AP) — Three American citizens imprisoned for years by China have been released and are returning to the United States, the White House said Wednesday, announcing a diplomatic agreement with Beijing in the final months of the Biden administration. The three are , all of whom had been designated by the U.S. government as wrongfully detained by China. had been facing a death sentence on drug charges while and were imprisoned on espionage charges. “Soon they will return and be reunited with their families for the first time in many years,” the White House said in a statement. The release comes just two months after China freed David Lin, who had spent nearly 20 years behind bars after being convicted of contract fraud. U.S.-China relations have been roiled for years over major disagreements between the world’s two largest economies on trade, human rights, the production of fentanyl precursors, security issues that include espionage and hacking, China’s aggressiveness toward Taiwan and its smaller neighbors in the South China Sea, and Beijing’s support for Russia’s military-industrial sector. The release of Americans deemed wrongfully detained in China has been a top agenda item in each conversation between the U.S. and China, and Wednesday’s development suggests a willingness by Beijing to engage with the outgoing Democratic administration before Republican President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January. Trump took significant actions against China on trade and diplomacy during his first term. He has pledged to continue those policies in his second term, leading to unease among many who fear that an all-out trade war will greatly affect the international economy and could spur potential Chinese military action against Taiwan. Still, the two countries have maintained a dialogue that has included a partial restoration of military-to-military contacts. President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping met this month to discuss potential improvements. In a separate but related move, the State Department on Wednesday lowered its travel warning to China to “level two,” advising U.S. citizens to “exercise increased caution” from the norm when traveling to the mainland. The alert had previously been at “level three,” telling Americans they should “reconsider travel” to China in part because of the “risk of wrongful detention” of Americans. The new alert removes that wording but retains a warning that the Chinese government “arbitrarily enforces local laws, including exit bans on U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries, without fair and transparent process under the law.” The Biden administration had raised the cases of the detained Americans with China in multiple meetings over the past several years, including this month when Biden spoke to Xi on during the in Peru. Politico was first to report the men’s release, which it said was part of a prisoner swap with the U.S. The White House did not immediately confirm that any Chinese citizens had been returned home. Li, a Chinese immigrant who started an export business in the U.S., was detained in September 2016 after flying into Shanghai. He was placed under surveillance, interrogated without a lawyer and accused of providing state secrets to the FBI. A U.N. working group called his 10-year prison sentence arbitrary and his family said the charges were politically motivated. to life in prison on spying charges. He was detained in 2021, by the local bureau of China’s counterintelligence agency in the southeastern city of Suzhou after China had closed its borders and imposed tight domestic travel restrictions and social controls to fight the spread of COVID-19. After Leung's sentencing, — though without citing specific cases — that Americans reconsider traveling to China because of arbitrary law enforcement and exit bans and the risk of wrongful detentions. Swidan had been jailed for 12 years on a drug charge and, along with Li and Leung, had considered by the State Department to be wrongfully detained.By JILL COLVIN and STEPHEN GROVES WASHINGTON (AP) — After several weeks working mostly behind closed doors, Vice President-elect JD Vance returned to Capitol Hill this week in a new, more visible role: Helping Donald Trump try to get his most contentious Cabinet picks to confirmation in the Senate, where Vance has served for the last two years. Vance arrived at the Capitol on Wednesday with former Rep. Matt Gaetz and spent the morning sitting in on meetings between Trump’s choice for attorney general and key Republicans, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The effort was for naught: Gaetz announced a day later that he was withdrawing his name amid scrutiny over sex trafficking allegations and the reality that he was unlikely to be confirmed. Thursday morning Vance was back, this time accompanying Pete Hegseth, the “Fox & Friends Weekend” host whom Trump has tapped to be the next secretary of defense. Hegseth also has faced allegations of sexual assault that he denies. Vance is expected to accompany other nominees for meetings in coming weeks as he tries to leverage the two years he has spent in the Senate to help push through Trump’s picks. Vice President-elect JD Vance, still a Republican senator from Ohio, walks from a private meeting with President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., center, and Vice President-elect JD Vance, left, walk out of a meeting with Republican Senate Judiciary Committee members, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2024. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis) FILE – Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, departs the chamber at the Capitol in Washington, March 15, 2023. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) FILE – Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, center speaks during a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 7, 2023. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File) FILE – Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, right, speaks with Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, before testifying at a hearing, March 9, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf, File) FILE – Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, arrives for a classified briefing on China, at the Capitol in Washington, Feb. 15, 2023. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) FILE – Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, arrives for a vote on Capitol Hill, Sept. 12, 2023 in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File) FILE – Sen. JD Vance R-Ohio speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File) Vice President-elect JD Vance, still a Republican senator from Ohio, walks from a private meeting with President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) The role of introducing nominees around Capitol Hill is an unusual one for a vice president-elect. Usually the job goes to a former senator who has close relationships on the Hill, or a more junior aide. But this time the role fits Vance, said Marc Short, who served as Trump’s first director of legislative affairs as well as chief of staff to Trump’s first vice president, Mike Pence, who spent more than a decade in Congress and led the former president’s transition ahead of his first term. ”JD probably has a lot of current allies in the Senate and so it makes sense to have him utilized in that capacity,” Short said. Unlike the first Trump transition, which played out before cameras at Trump Tower in New York and at the president-elect’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, this one has largely happened behind closed doors in Palm Beach, Florida. There, a small group of officials and aides meet daily at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to run through possible contenders and interview job candidates. The group includes Elon Musk, the billionaire who has spent so much time at the club that Trump has joked he can’t get rid of him. Vance has been a constant presence, even as he’s kept a lower profile. The Ohio senator has spent much of the last two weeks in Palm Beach, according to people familiar with his plans, playing an active role in the transition, on which he serves as honorary chair. Vance has been staying at a cottage on the property of the gilded club, where rooms are adorned with cherubs, oriental rugs and intricate golden inlays. It’s a world away from the famously hardscrabble upbringing that Vance documented in the memoir that made him famous, “Hillbilly Elegy.” His young children have also joined him at Mar-a-Lago, at times. Vance was photographed in shorts and a polo shirt playing with his kids on the seawall of the property with a large palm frond, a U.S. Secret Service robotic security dog in the distance. On the rare days when he is not in Palm Beach, Vance has been joining the sessions remotely via Zoom. Though he has taken a break from TV interviews after months of constant appearances, Vance has been active in the meetings, which began immediately after the election and include interviews and as well as presentations on candidates’ pluses and minuses. Among those interviewed: Contenders to replace FBI Director Christopher Wray , as Vance wrote in a since-deleted social media post. Defending himself from criticism that he’d missed a Senate vote in which one of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees was confirmed, Vance wrote that he was meeting at the time “with President Trump to interview multiple positions for our government, including for FBI Director.” “I tend to think it’s more important to get an FBI director who will dismantle the deep state than it is for Republicans to lose a vote 49-46 rather than 49-45,” Vance added on X. “But that’s just me.” While Vance did not come in to the transition with a list of people he wanted to see in specific roles, he and his friend, Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who is also a member of the transition team, were eager to see former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. find roles in the administration. Trump ended up selecting Gabbard as the next director of national intelligence , a powerful position that sits atop the nation’s spy agencies and acts as the president’s top intelligence adviser. And he chose Kennedy to lead the Department of Health and Human Services , a massive agency that oversees everything from drug and food safety to Medicare and Medicaid. Vance was also a big booster of Tom Homan, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who will serve as Trump’s “border czar.” In another sign of Vance’s influence, James Braid, a top aide to the senator, is expected to serve as Trump’s legislative affairs director. Allies say it’s too early to discuss what portfolio Vance might take on in the White House. While he gravitates to issues like trade, immigration and tech policy, Vance sees his role as doing whatever Trump needs. Vance was spotted days after the election giving his son’s Boy Scout troop a tour of the Capitol and was there the day of leadership elections. He returned in earnest this week, first with Gaetz — arguably Trump’s most divisive pick — and then Hegseth, who has was been accused of sexually assaulting a woman in 2017, according to an investigative report made public this week. Hegseth told police at the time that the encounter had been consensual and denied any wrongdoing. Vance hosted Hegseth in his Senate office as GOP senators, including those who sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, filtered in to meet with the nominee for defense secretary. While a president’s nominees usually visit individual senators’ offices, meeting them on their own turf, the freshman senator — who is accompanied everywhere by a large Secret Service detail that makes moving around more unwieldy — instead brought Gaetz to a room in the Capitol on Wednesday and Hegseth to his office on Thursday. Senators came to them. Vance made it to votes Wednesday and Thursday, but missed others on Thursday afternoon. Vance is expected to continue to leverage his relationships in the Senate after Trump takes office. But many Republicans there have longer relationships with Trump himself. Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, said that Trump was often the first person to call him back when he was trying to reach high-level White House officials during Trump’s first term. “He has the most active Rolodex of just about anybody I’ve ever known,” Cramer said, adding that Vance would make a good addition. “They’ll divide names up by who has the most persuasion here,” Cramer said, but added, “Whoever his liaison is will not work as hard at it as he will.” Cramer was complimentary of the Ohio senator, saying he was “pleasant” and ” interesting” to be around. ′′He doesn’t have the long relationships,” he said. “But we all like people that have done what we’ve done. I mean, that’s sort of a natural kinship, just probably not as personally tied.” Under the Constitution, Vance will also have a role presiding over the Senate and breaking tie votes. But he’s not likely to be needed for that as often as was Kamala Harris, who broke a record number of ties for Democrats as vice president, since Republicans will have a bigger cushion in the chamber next year. Colvin reported from New York. Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
Every December, as it has since 1927 with Charles Lindbergh, Time magazine selects and features the most consequential Person of the Year (13 United States presidents, other world leaders, popes). Sometimes it has not been a person, as such, but a tectonic societal shift (the personal computer, the #MeToo movement). Donald Trump, just named Time’s 2024 Person of the Year , was first elevated to that title after his 2016 election victory. He is consequential because he has returned to power even after attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, even after supporting the insurrection on January 6, 2021, and notwithstanding being twice impeached and convicted of a felony. President-elect Donald Trump speaks during Time magazine’s Person of the Year announcement at the New York Stock Exchange. Credit: AP This year, no one else was on so many people’s minds as Trump. In Time’s judgment , Trump was “the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year”. Time might have conferred the accolade jointly on Trump and Elon Musk, given Musk’s astonishing fusion of more than $US250 million in campaign contributions with his dominance over his X platform to help make Trump president. If influence is power, Musk has it. With ceaseless hours at Trump’s side to help shape his presidency, and his establishment and funding of a Musk think tank that will generate edicts for Trump to impose to re-sculpt the government, Musk has effectively supplanted JD Vance to become Trump’s vice president. Musk’s power is second only to Trump’s. For the next two years, Trump will be at his zenith. He will never have to face the voters again, which means he can act with impunity as he makes decisions to advance Trumpism and all that he wants to accomplish. Trump’s Republican Party, which he now owns, controls both houses of Congress, so there will be no more impeachments. His attorney-general and chief of the FBI will go after his political enemies . His secretary of defence will ensure that his generals follow his orders – overseas and in the streets of America’s cities. Loading Public servants will take loyalty oaths or be purged. Trump will take money appropriated by the Congress away from programs he does not like and divert it to his priorities. On the world stage, Trump will present more like Putin, Xi and Orban than Starmer, Macron and Albanese. Trump has already broken the norm of the US having “one president at a time” with his pre-inaugural threats to Mexico, Canada and China on trade and his forays into concluding the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East on his terms. His first inaugural address eight years ago featured the dystopian theme of “American carnage”. We will see how deep he wallows in that dark pool on January 20, 2025. Immediately after his address, when he arrives in the Oval Office, Trump’s march through the first 100 days will formally begin. Political newsletter Axios reports that “Trump advisers are running out of words to describe what’s coming in January”. “They say he feels empowered and emboldened, vindicated and validated, and eager to stretch the boundaries of power.” Trump will sign dozens of executive orders repealing everything he can that Biden did with his executive démarches four years ago, such as on climate, abortion rights, immigration, gun control and student loans. Loading Trump’s nominees will face confirmation hearings and votes in the Senate. There will be firestorms around Kash Patel to head the FBI, who wants to close the FBI’s building, expel its agents around the country and prosecute Trump’s enemies; Robert Kennedy Jr as secretary of health and human services, who wants to take a baseball bat to how Anthony Fauci practises medicine, but is opposed by 75 Nobel laureates ; Pete Hegseth at Defence, under fire for sexual misconduct, alcohol abuse and financial mismanagement; and Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, who many see as an asset to Putin. Any who are knocked back will be replaced by other loyal Trumpists with the same mandates. They will do all that Trump wants. Trump will move to pardon and release from jail hundreds of his foot soldiers who stormed the Capitol on January 6. After Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, Trump will not even be singed by the critics. Trump will begin the detention and process of deporting hundreds of thousands of immigrants across the country. He will unveil legislation to get his budget, close the borders, cut taxes and fight over the public debt limit to avoid a default of the United States. Loading Trump will begin to implement his campaign promises – over and above the threats against Mexico, Canada and China – to impose across-the-board tariffs of up to 20 per cent on all goods coming into the US and up to 60 per cent for imports from China. Will Australia be in these crosshairs? There is absolutely no basis on which Trump’s tariffs on Australia can be justified. Trump loves a trade surplus. Australia has a structural trade deficit with the US. Australia has a free trade agreement with the US. New higher tariffs are incompatible with the letter and spirit of that trade pact. But there is a real threat here. Trump has just ripped up the trade agreement he negotiated in his first term with Canada and Mexico. If Trump can do that to those allies he can do it to Australia. This could be the first hard test in the Australia-US, Albanese-Trump relationship. Trump – let’s call him Person of the Century, so far – is on a high. The year ahead will be savage. The waves of Trump’s first 100 days will hit Australia’s shores too. Bruce Wolpe is a senior fellow at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre. He has served on the Democratic staff in the US Congress and as chief of staff to former prime minister Julia Gillard. Save Log in , register or subscribe to save articles for later. License this article Trump's America Opinion Trump diplomacy Donald Trump Elon Musk FBI More... Bruce Wolpe is a senior fellow at the University of Sydney's United States Studies Centre. He has served on the Democratic staff in the US Congress and as chief of staff to former prime minister Julia Gillard. Most Viewed in World LoadingIsrael has agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon that will take effect at 4 a.m. Wednesday. Moments after U.S. President Joe Biden announced the ceasefire deal , which Israel's Cabinet approved late Tuesday, an Israeli airstrike slammed into the Lebanese capital. Residents of Beirut and its southern suburbs have endured the most intense day of Israeli strikes since the war began nearly 14 months ago, as Israel signaled it aims to keep pummeling Hezbollah before the ceasefire is set to take hold. At least 24 people have killed by Israeli strikes across Lebanon on Tuesday, according to local authorities. Hezbollah also fired rockets into Israel on Tuesday, triggering air raid sirens across the country’s north. An Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire would mark the first major step toward ending the regionwide unrest triggered by Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. But it does not address the devastating war in Gaza. Hezbollah began attacking Israel a day after Hamas’ attack. The fighting in Lebanon escalated into all-out war in September with massive Israeli airstrikes across the country and an Israeli ground invasion of the south. In Gaza, more than 44,000 people have been killed and more than 104,000 wounded in the nearly 14-month war between Israel and Hamas, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Here's the Latest: WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s senior national security team was briefed by the Biden administration as negotiations unfolded, according to the senior U.S. official. The official, who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity in a White House-organized call, added that the incoming Trump administration officials were not directly involved in the talks, but that it was important that the incoming administration knew “what we were negotiating and what the commitments were.” The official said “all fire will stop from all parties” at 4 a.m. local time. The next step would be what the official described as a “phased withdrawal” by the Israeli military. As the Israelis pull back, Lebanese national forces will occupy the territories. The process is slated to finish within 60 days. Lebanese forces is supposed to patrol the area and remove Hezbollah weaponry and infrastructure there. “Hezbollah is incredibly weak at this moment, both militarily and politically,” the official said. “And this is the opportunity for Lebanon to re-establish its sovereignty over its territory.” The official said the ceasefire agreement will strengthen what’s known as the “tripartite mechanism” by including the United States and France. The goal is to address violations of the ceasefire without a return to hostilities. UNITED NATIONS – The top U.N. envoy for Lebanon welcomed the ceasefire announcement and urged Israel and Hezbollah militants to take concrete actions to fully implement the 2006 agreement that ended their last war. U.N. Special Coordinator Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert said the agreement “marks the starting point of a critical process” that must see both sides fully implement U.N. Security Council resolution 1701. It called for the deployment of Lebanese armed forces in the south bordering Israel and the disarmament of all armed groups including Hezbollah – neither of which has happened in the past 17 years. “Nothing less than the full and unwavering commitment of both parties is required,” Hennis-Plasschaert said. “Neither side can afford another period of disingenuous implementation under the guise of ostensible calm.” She commended the parties for “seizing the opportunity to close this devastating chapter,” stressing that “Now is the time to deliver, through concrete actions, to consolidate today’s achievement.” UNITED NATIONS — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is calling for urgent international intervention to stop what he described as “an ongoing genocidal war” in Gaza. Abbas heads the Palestinian Authority which has limited self-rule in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, but not Gaza, which has been controlled by Hamas. The U.S. and others want a reinvigorated Palestinian Authority to run Gaza when the war ends. In a speech on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Abbas accused Israel of repeating what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 and 1967 – displacing them and seizing their land and resources. Abbas demanded to know how long the world will remain silent and refuse to compel Israel to abide by international law. The speech to U.N. member nations was read by Palestinian U.N. ambassador Riyad Mansour. “The only way to halt the halt the dangerous escalation we are witnessing in the region, and maintain regional and international stability, security and peace, is to resolve the question of Palestine,” Abbas' speech said. This must be done in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions which call for a two-state solution, he said. BEIRUT -- Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati welcomed the U.S.-brokered ceasefire proposal between Israel and Hezbollah, describing it as a crucial step toward stability, the return of displaced people to their homes and regional calm. Mikati made these comments in a statement issued just after U.S. President Joe announced the truce deal. Mikati said he discussed the ceasefire agreement with Biden by phone earlier Tuesday. The prime minister reaffirmed Lebanon’s commitment to implementing U.N. resolution 1701, strengthening the Lebanese army’s presence in the south, and cooperating with the U.N. peacekeeping force. He also called on Israel to fully comply with the ceasefire and withdraw from southern Lebanon in accordance the U.N. resolution. JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security Cabinet has approved a ceasefire deal with Hezbollah, clearing the way for the truce to take effect. Netanyahu’s office said the plan was approved by a 10-1 margin. The late-night vote came shortly before President Joe Biden was expected to announced details of the deal in Washington. Earlier, Netanyahu defended the ceasefire, saying Israel has inflicted heavy damage on Hezbollah and could now focus its efforts on Hamas militants in Gaza and his top security concern, Iran. Netanyahu vowed to strike Hezbollah hard if it violates the expected deal. WASHINGTON — Rep. Mike Waltz, President-elect Donald Trump’s designate to be national security adviser, credited Trump’s victory with helping bring the parties together toward a ceasefire in Lebanon. “Everyone is coming to the table because of President Trump,” he said in a post on X on Tuesday. “His resounding victory sent a clear message to the rest of the world that chaos won’t be tolerated. I’m glad to see concrete steps towards deescalation in the Middle East.” He added: “But let’s be clear: The Iran Regime is the root cause of the chaos & terror that has been unleashed across the region. We will not tolerate the status quo of their support for terrorism.” BEIRUT — Israeli jets targeted a building in a bustling commercial area of Beirut for the first time since the start of the 13-month war between Hezbollah and Israel. The strike on Hamra is around 400 meters (yards) from the country’s central bank. A separate strike hit the Mar Elias neighborhood in the country’s capital Tuesday. There was no immediate word on casualties from either strike, part of the biggest wave of attacks on the capital since the war started. Residents in central Beirut were seen fleeing after the Israeli army issued evacuation warnings for four targets in the city. Meanwhile, the Israeli army carried out airstrikes on at least 30 targets in Beirut’s southern suburbs Tuesday, including two strikes in the Jnah neighborhood near the Kuwaiti Embassy. Lebanon’s Health Ministry reported that 13 people were injured in the strikes on the southern suburbs. BEIRUT — Hezbollah has said it accepts the ceasefire proposal with Israel, but a senior official with the group said Tuesday that it had not seen the agreement in its final form. “After reviewing the agreement signed by the enemy government, we will see if there is a match between what we stated and what was agreed upon by the Lebanese officials,” Mahmoud Qamati, deputy chair of Hezbollah’s political council, told the Al Jazeera news network. “We want an end to the aggression, of course, but not at the expense of the sovereignty of the state.” of Lebanon, he said. “Any violation of sovereignty is refused.” Among the issues that may remain is an Israeli demand to reserve the right to act should Hezbollah violate its obligations under the emerging deal. The deal seeks to push Hezbollah and Israeli troops out of southern Lebanon. JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that he would recommend his Cabinet adopt a United States-brokered ceasefire agreement with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, as Israeli warplanes struck across Lebanon, killing at least 23 people. The Israeli military also issued a flurry of evacuation warnings — a sign it was aiming to inflict punishment on Hezbollah down to the final moments before any ceasefire takes hold. For the first time in the conflict, Israeli ground troops reached parts of Lebanon’s Litani River, a focal point of the emerging deal. In a televised statement, Netanyahu said he would present the ceasefire to Cabinet ministers later on Tuesday, setting the stage for an end to nearly 14 months of fighting. Netanyahu said the vote was expected later Tuesday. It was not immediately clear when the ceasefire would go into effect, and the exact terms of the deal were not released. The deal does not affect Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, which shows no signs of ending. BEIRUT — Lebanon’s state media said Israeli strikes on Tuesday killed at least 10 people in Baalbek province the country’s east. At least three people were killed in the southern city of Tyre when Israel bombed a Palestinian refugee camp, said Mohammed Bikai, a representative of the Fatah group in the area. He said several more people were missing and at least three children were among the wounded. He said the sites struck inside the camp were “completely civilian places” and included a kitchen that was being used to cook food for displaced people. JERUSALEM — Dozens of Israeli protesters took to a major highway in Tel Aviv on Tuesday evening to call for the return of the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, as the country awaited news of a potential ceasefire in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. Protesters chanted “We are all hostages,” and “Deal now!” waving signs with faces of some of the roughly 100 hostages believed to be still held in Gaza, at least a third of whom are thought to be dead. Most of the other hostages Hamas captured in the Oct. 7, 2023 attack were released during a ceasefire last year. The prospect of a ceasefire deal in Lebanon has raised desperation among the relatives of captives still held in Gaza, who once hoped that the release of hostages from Gaza would be included. Instead of a comprehensive deal, the ceasefire on the table is instead narrowly confined to Lebanon. Dozens of Israelis were also demonstrating against the expected cease-fire, gathering outside Israel’s military headquarters in central Tel Aviv. One of the protesters, Yair Ansbacher, says the deal is merely a return to the failed 2006 U.N. resolution that was meant to uproot Hezbollah from the area. “Of course that didn’t happen,” he says. “This agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.” FIUGGI, Italy — Foreign ministers from the world’s industrialized countries said Tuesday they strongly supported an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah and insisted that Israel comply with international law in its ongoing military operations in the region. At the end of their two-day summit, the ministers didn’t refer directly to the International Criminal Court and its recent arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister over crimes against humanity . Italy had put the ICC warrants on the official meeting agenda, even though the G7 was split on the issue. The U.S., Israel’s closest ally, isn’t a signatory to the court and has called the warrants “outrageous.” However, the EU’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell said all the other G7 countries were signatories and therefore obliged to respect the warrants. In the end, the final statement adopted by the ministers said Israel, in exercising its right to defend itself, “must fully comply with its obligations under international law in all circumstances, including international humanitarian law.” And it said all G7 members — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States – “reiterate our commitment to international humanitarian law and will comply with our respective obligations.” It stressed that “there can be no equivalence between the terrorist group Hamas and the State of Israel.” The ICC warrants say there's reason to believe Netanyahu used “starvation as a method of warfare” by restricting humanitarian aid and intentionally targeted civilians in Israel’s campaign against Hamas in Gaza — charges Israeli officials deny. BEIRUT — An Israeli strike on Tuesday levelled a residential building in the central Beirut district of Basta — the second time in recent days warplanes have hit the crowded area near the city’s downtown. At least seven people were killed and 37 wounded in Beirut, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry. It was not immediately clear if anyone in particular was targeted, though Israel says its airstrikes target Hezbollah officials and assets. The Israeli military spokesman issued a flurry of evacuation warnings for many areas, including areas in Beirut that have not been targeted throughout the war, like the capital’s commercial Hamra district, where many people displaced by the war have been staying. The warnings, coupled with fear that Israel was ratcheting up attacks in Lebanon during the final hours before a ceasefire is reached, sparked panic and sent residents fleeing in their cars to safer areas. In areas close to Hamra, families including women and children were seen running away toward the Mediterranean Sea’s beaches carrying their belongings. Traffic was completely gridlocked as people tried to get away, honking their car horns as Israeli drones buzzed loudly overhead. The Israeli military also issued warnings for 20 more buildings in Beirut’s suburbs to evacuate before they too were struck — a sign it was aiming to inflict punishment on Hezbollah in the final moments before any ceasefire takes hold. TEL AVIV, Israel — The independent civilian commission of inquiry into the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel has found Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly responsible for the failures leading up to the attack, alongside former defense ministers, the army chief and the heads of the security services. The civil commission presented its findings today after a four-month probe in which it heard some 120 witnesses. It was set up by relatives of victims of the Hamas attack, in response to the absence of any state probe. The commission determined that the Israeli government, its army and security services “failed in their primary mission of protecting the citizens of Israel.” It said Netanyahu was responsible for ignoring “repeated warnings” ahead of Oct. 7, 2023 for what it described as his appeasing approach over the years toward Hamas, and for “undermining all decision-making centers, including the cabinet and the National Security Council, in a way that prevented any serious discussion” on security issues. The commission further determined that the military and defense leaders bear blame for ignoring warnings from within the army, and for reducing the army’s presence along the Gaza border while relying excessively on technological means. On the day of the Hamas attack, the report says, the army’s response was both slow and lacking. The civil commission called for the immediate establishment of a state commission of inquiry into the Oct. 7 attack. Netanyahu has opposed launching a state commission of inquiry, arguing that such an investigation should begin only once the war is over. JERUSALEM -- The Israeli military says its ground troops have reached parts of Lebanon’s Litani River — a focal point of the emerging ceasefire. In a statement Tuesday, the army said it had reached the Wadi Slouqi area in southern Lebanon and clashed with Hezbollah forces. Under a proposed ceasefire, Hezbollah would be required to move its forces north of the Litani, which in some places is some 30 kilometers (20 miles) north of the Israeli border. The military says the clashes with Hezbollah took place on the eastern end of the Litani, just a few kilometers (miles) from the border. It is one of the deepest places Israeli forces have reached in a nearly two-month ground operation. The military says soldiers destroyed rocket launchers and missiles and engaged in “close-quarters combat” with Hezbollah forces. The announcement came hours before Israel’s security Cabinet is expected to approve a ceasefire that would end nearly 14 months of fighting. BEIRUT — Israeli jets Tuesday struck at least six buildings in Beirut’s southern suburbs Tuesday, including one that slammed near the country’s only airport. Large plumes of smoke could be seen around the airport near the Mediterranean coast, which has continued to function despite its location beside the densely populated suburbs where many of Hezbollah’s operations are based. The strikes come hours before Israel’s cabinet was scheduled to meet to discuss a proposal to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. The proposal calls for an initial two-month ceasefire during which Israeli forces would withdraw from Lebanon and Hezbollah would end its armed presence along the southern border south of the Litani River. There were no immediate reports of casualties from Tuesday’s airstrikes. FIUGGI, Italy — EU top diplomat Josep Borrell, whose term ends Dec. 1, said he proposed to the G7 and Arab ministers who joined in talks on Monday that the U.N. Security Council take up a resolution specifically demanding humanitarian assistance reach Palestinians in Gaza, saying deliveries have been completely impeded. “The two-state solution will come later. Everything will come later. But we are talking about weeks or days,” for desperate Palestinians, he said. “Hunger has been used as an arm against people who are completely abandoned.” It was a reference to the main accusation levelled by the International Criminal Court in its arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister. Borrell said the signatories to the court, including six of the seven G7 members, are obliged under international law to respect and implement the court’s decisions. Host Italy put the ICC warrants on the G7 agenda at the last minute, but there was no consensus on the wording of how the G7 would respond given the U.S., Israel’s closest ally, has called the warrants “outrageous.” Italy, too, has said it respects the court but expressed concern that the warrants were politically motivated and ill-advised given Netanyahu is necessary for any deal to end the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon. “Like it or not, the International Criminal Court is a court as powerful as any national court,” Borrell said. “And if the Europeans don’t support International Criminal Court then there would not be any hope for justice,” he said. Borrell, whose term ends Dec. 1, said he proposed to the G7 and Arab ministers who joined in talks on Monday that the U.N. Security Council take up a resolution specifically demanding humanitarian assistance reach Palestinians in Gaza, saying deliveries have been completely impeded. “The two-state solution will come later. Everything will come later. But we are talking about weeks or days,” for desperate Palestinians, he said. “Hunger has been used as an arm against people who are completely abandoned.” It was a reference to the main accusation levelled by the International Criminal Court in its arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister. Borrell said the signatories to the court, including six of the seven G7 members, are obliged under international law to respect and implement the court’s decisions. Host Italy put the ICC warrants on the G7 agenda at the last minute, but there was no consensus on the wording of how the G7 would respond given the U.S., Israel’s closest ally, has called the warrants “outrageous.” Italy, too, has said it respects the court but expressed concern that the warrants were politically motivated and ill-advised given Netanyahu is necessary for any deal to end the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon. “Like it or not, the International Criminal Court is a court as powerful as any national court,” Borrell said. “And if the Europeans don’t support International Criminal Court then there would not be any hope for justice,” he said. (edited)Joe Burrow Makes Concerning Admission Before Cold Weather Games
Chancay megaport magnifies China’s presence in South America
The Nigerian government has began moves to position the country to tap from the global hydrogen economy which is projected to grow exponentially to over $200 billion by 2030. This is as the Federal Ministry of Petroleum Resources promotes hydrogen as a clean energy source with vast potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, create jobs and boost the nation’s economic growth. Speaking at the inaugural conference on hydrogen economy held in Abuja on Tuesday, Ekperikpe Ekpo, minister of state for petroleum resources (gas), noted that hydrogen produced using renewable energy and gas resources presents a unique opportunity to bridge Nigeria’s energy demand. According to him, the case for hydrogen in Nigeria is clear, as the nation is blessed with rich renewable resources, from vast solar potential in the northern regions to the wind corridors along southern coast. “Our natural gas reserves gas reserves of 206 trillion cubic feet position us perfectly for blue hydrogen production. Our significant solar potential, with about 2,000 hours of sunshine annually, provides an ideal foundation for green hydrogen. “By harnessing these resources to produce green hydrogen, Nigeria can play a significant role in reducing emissions and supporting the decarbonization of sectors such as transport, power generation, and heavy industry. “The use of hydrogen also provides a viable path for transforming our oil and gas infrastructure, allowing us to turn challenges into opportunities while ensuring our energy sector remains vibrant and globally competitive,” he said. The minister noted that Nigeria’s strategic location offers excellent access to European and African markets, noting that the existing gas infrastructure can be adapted for hydrogen transportation For him, positioning the country to become a key player in the global hydrogen economy is not just an ambition but a strategic imperative that aligns with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda and the government’s commitment to sustainable development. In his remarks, Nicholas Ella, permanent secretary of the ministry, said that Nigeria requires significant investments in infrastructure to capture a share of this expanding hydrogen market. He noted that by 2023, countries such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea had already collectively committed over $70 billion to developing hydrogen supply chains and technology. This, he said, underlines the importance of Nigeria positioning itself as an investment-friendly environment that can attract similar international financial support and partnerships. “This conference’s key focus is engaging in meaningful policy discussions. These conversations are essential as we establish regulations that ensure safety and promote industry standards for hydrogen use. “Recent studies suggest that the global adoption of hydrogen could reduce CO2 emissions by up to 6 gigatons annually by 2050. For Nigeria, integrating hydrogen into our energy ecosystem can significantly contribute to achieving our target of reducing carbon emissions by 20% by 2030, as outlined in our Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). “We are committed to promoting blue hydrogen through the utilization of existing gas resources and ensuring that green hydrogen projects align with global sustainability standards,” he said. Also speaking at the event, Kashim Shetimma, Nigeria’s vice president, said that Nigeria is turning to hydrogen to meet its energy demand, noting that to attain Nigeria’s ambitious targets, building a robust and varied energy mix in line with local resource availability are critical. Representing the vice president, Sadiq Wanka, special adviser to the president on power and infrastructure, said that globally, hydrogen demand is expected to skyrocket, said: “Given our vast natural gas and renewable energy resources as a country, the potential for hydrogen to meet our domestic energy demands, service our burgeoning petrochemicais industry and reshape our energy trade through exports, cannot be overestimated.”