THEO & EVA REPORT: Part 1

Dear editor,

I keep reading the letters critical of District 1A Rep. Mark Sauter for not just checking the boxes and doing what he was told to do. Instead, he read the bills, assessed the implications, took his constituents’ wishes into consideration and voted.

Do we really want to punish elected officials for taking time to read the bills, thinking through the issues and voting their conscience?

Do we want the only qualification for elected officials to be that they do what they are told to do?

And, do we want the outside influencers, such as the Nevada-based consultancy with links to the Proud Boys who put Dist. 1 Sen. Scott Herndon into office to now determine what happens in every single vote? Or do we want a democracy, where elected officials serve all constituents, not just the out-of-state funders and the angriest locals.

I want my elected officials to seek to understand the legislation they vote on. I want them to consider the consequences (both intended and unintended). I want them to know more than I know about proposed legislation and to do what is right for our county and state.

We are at a dangerous precipice with the pressure and cancel culture we apply to leaders. Our leaders represent all of us, not the Bonner County Republican Central Committee. They even represent those who didn’t vote for them. That’s how a democracy works for Republicans, Democrats and independents.

Kathryn Larson Sagle

divulged. They are causing harm to their constituents.

Legislators’ meddling with schools and libraries isn’t what the citizens want. We want legislation to improve education and access to information. Public schools need to be strengthened, with more emphasis on our history and civics to grow informed citizens.

On the federal level, Fulcher, Crapo and Risch are OK with defaulting on existing bills. They have always raised the debt limit in the past, but now they balk. They seem to want an economic disaster as a prank to try to make Biden look bad.

It’s called a “muffler,” and it reduces the noise that comes from your engine. As one downtown business manager told me recently, “All the asshats in diesel trucks, cars with chopped mufflers and pointless turbo Subarus who just constantly gun it from Fourth and Pine to First: We’re all so impressed.” If you or someone you love fits this description, there is help. It’s called going to Melody Muffler or an auto mechanic and spending a few bucks to make it so your vehicle sounds more like a car again and less like a chainsaw that needs oil.

•People who talk loudly on their phones on speakerphone setting while sitting in a busy restaurant dining room: why?

Dear editor, Mark Sauter is our lone representative in Boise. He listens to his constituents and takes our concerns seriously. The others seem bent on imposing their personal extreme ideologies on the rest of us. Criminalizing medical care has created forced pregnancy, while causing Bonner General Health to end maternity services and driving doctors from Idaho. They are literally putting women’s lives in jeopardy. I consider their behavior to be cruelly sadistic. They also want to restrict access to Medicaid for working families, for reasons they have not

Do you want Medicare to stop paying for medical care? Are you ready for you or loved ones to try to get by without Social Security? Do you want zero federal assistance to keep forest fires from devastating our beautiful state? All federal funds would cease if they succeed in their diabolical plan.

These men are not our representatives; they are largely bought and influenced only by wealthy contributors from other states and do not care about our needs.

Keep this in mind in the 2024 election. We need serious representatives who understand the concept of public service.

Ann Warwick Sandpoint

Sandpoint twin siblings Theo and Eva Janssen have embarked on an international trip to see Iceland and Europe.

“Highlights of our trip will be seeking out cross-cultural and sustainable living educational opportunities (Icelandic geothermal power station, biking in the Netherlands, Fair Trade chocolate and sustainable transport by sail, etc.,” said mom Jessica Janssen.

Theo and Eva have sent back the first of their “I took the Reader” series bringing the Reader along on their travels. Here they relax in the Blue Lagoon in Iceland.

“We liked having slushies in the pool,” they wrote.

We look forward to your next update!

Kagan blasts judicial policymaking

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a separate concurring opinion with fellow liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson that criticized the court for policy making.

Drawing parallels with her dissent in a decision last year that restricted the EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions at existing power plants, Kagan wrote that the court’s conservatives simply substituted their policy preferences for what Congress actually enacted.

The majority in this case invented a standard that laws that impact private property must have “exceedingly clear language,” Kagan wrote, putting “a thumb on the scale for property owners,” and disregarding the public interest in clean water.

“A court may not rewrite Congress’s plain instructions because they go further than preferred,” she said. “That is what the majority does today in finding that the Clean Water Act excludes many wetlands [clearly] ‘adjacent’ to covered waters.”

Lengthy legal fight to define reach of Clean Water Act

The case is part of a decades-long legal conflict to define the reach of the Clean Water Act.

Alito’s majority opinion referenced the years of shifting definitions and the uncertainty provided in various court cases and agency regulations, calling it “the persistent problem that we must address.”

In general, agricultural interests, home builders and Republican officials have argued that the federal regulations impose an undue burden and should be applied narrowly.

“The Supreme Court just ruled that

Biden’s overreaching WOTUS interpretation is unconstitutional,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, said on Twitter. “This is a huge win for farmers across America.”

Environmental groups and Democrats have argued for a broader definition that they say allows the federal government to offer important protections.

“Federal protections that don’t depend on local politics or regional polluter influence are essential to vulnerable and disadvantaged communities nationwide,” Jim Murphy, the director of legal advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation, said in a statement “The court’s ruling removes these vital protections from important streams and wetlands in every state.”

Murphy called on Congress and state governments to adopt stronger standards.

The ruling doesn’t necessarily limit the issue’s long-running uncertainty, Peck said. While it settles federal jurisdiction for now, states, especially in the West, may decide to strengthen their own clean water laws and regulations, she said.

Reaction on SCOTUS decision from Congress

Several Republicans in Congress responded to the ruling with enthusiasm.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is clearly a decisive win for America’s farmers, small businesses, property owners and those who help build our infrastructure,” U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam Graves, of Missouri, and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Rouzer of North Carolina said in a joint statement.

“This is great news for rural America!” tweeted Minnesota Republican Pete Stauber, chairman of the U.S. House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

“I’m glad to see the Supreme Court rightfully and unanimously blocked Biden’s ill-conceived #WOTUS rule,” U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa wrote on Twitter. “This is a big WIN for Iowa, where nearly every industry is impacted.”

“Kansans are best positioned to conserve our land and natural resources,” Kansas Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Estes said. “And they don’t need Biden’s bureaucrats 1,000 miles away to regulate the rainwater that accumulates in ditches in rural parts of our state.”

Fewer Democrats publicly commented on the ruling, but Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Tom Carper, of Delaware, said the decision undermines the EPA’s ability to effectively regulate water pollution and puts “America’s remaining wetlands in jeopardy.”

“I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, and I am deeply concerned about the future impacts of this case on clean drinking water, coastal and flood-prone communities, and wildlife across our nation,” Carper said.

Jacob Fischler covers federal policy as a senior reporter for States Newsroom. Based in Oregon, he focuses on Western issues. This article was published May 25 on the Boise-based Idaho Capital Sun website, idahocapitalsun.com, part of the States Newsroom nonprofit reporting project.