You can find some interesting articles about it, but if you're from out west, you know Californians are destroying every state around them. Mostly, its urban liberals mucking up places like Idaho. But in Idaho, it's urban conservatives. Ultra religious, ultra law and order, ultra conservative. They are tone deaf, insane, and ravenous.
So I suppose I should be unsurprised that this happened.
But I am kind of surprised because, holy shit. Water?
Bless Mr. Freitas for fighting. The Court of Appeals released a rather harsh opinion. Here are my two favorite parts:
So, a city has a legitimate interest in preventing a family from having any access to water in their home if they can't pay the bill.
I can't pay a debt on time, so by law, I cannot get a loan from ANYONE.
I can't pay my electric bill, so you're a criminal if you loan me a flashlight.
I can't pay my water bill, so you're criminal if you GIVE ME A GLASS OF WATER.
Oh wait, that's what this case is about.
My other favorite part:
Freitas fails to specify how, under any of the several provisions he invokes, the ordinance is unconstitutional. Instead, he provides several statements about the value of charity followed by conclusory assertions that charity must be protected under the state and federal constitutions. These assertions are unsupported by cogent argument or relevant authority applicable to the facts of this case. A party waives an issue on appeal if either authority or argument is lacking. Zichko, 129 Idaho at 263, 923 P.2d at 970. Accordingly, we will not address this argument further.
A couple points here:
1. What authority "relevant to the facts of this case" do they expect? NO OTHER GOVERNMENT IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY FOR THE LAST 200+ YEARS HAS BEEN THIS INSANE.
2. Seeing as how he was claiming charity is protected by state and federal constitutions, he's required to prove it's a traditional value around since those documents were adopted. That substantive due process for you. Either judges buy it or they don't. Obviously, this set didn't.
3. This would have been a watershed moment for the judicial branch and these fuckers totally let it go by. Why? Seriously.
This case is the biggest black eye I've seen our appellate courts receive from the public since cases where they let really bad people go. You've got the IFF writing articles and getting them published all over the state. I mean. Self inflicted wound guys. Why do this to yourselves?
I get the opinion for the most part. I don't find the ordinance as clear as I think the constitution requires, certainly not if it's intended to apply as it does here. I'm of the "if a government wants to outlaw something totally normal it needs to do it in neon letters" crowd.
Bad news bears man. Bad news.