fbpx

Type to search

North Carolina Attorney General Refuses To Defend State From HB-2 Lawsuits

Featured Post Headlines National News Politics Top News

North Carolina Attorney General Refuses To Defend State From HB-2 Lawsuits

Share
Roy Cooper

Roy Cooper, North Carolina’s attorney general and Democratic candidate for governor, announced today that he would not defend the state against lawsuits brought on by HB-2, the recent state law which effectively repealed LGBT protections across North Carolina, specifically the city of Charlotte’s transgender-specific protections. The announcement came a day after two civil rights groups and three individuals sued the state for violating their constitutional rights.

Cooper warned of the economic consequences of enacting the law during a news conference today, saying “the threats to our economy will grow even darker the longer this law stays in effect.” The state has already faced backlash from tech companies like Apple, Microsoft, Intel and Google. Meanwhile, the mayors’ offices in San Francisco and New York City, in addition to New York state, have barred public employees from non-essential travel to North Carolina, effectively enacting an official boycott until the law is repealed.

Cooper was attacked by state senator Phil Berger for refusing to defend the law. “His zeal for pandering for the extreme left’s money and agenda in his race for governor is making it impossible for him to fulfill his duties as attorney general – and he should resign immediately,” said Berger, in a statement released at the same time Cooper was making his announcement.

The attorney general made it clear that he was not taking sides, nor will he step down. He has defended laws he disagreed with in the past, he said, such as the 2013 changes to voting laws that included a voter ID provision often used to suppress minority voting rights. Nor would the state lack legal representation, according to Cooper. The governor “has not hesitated to hire his own attorneys and we would assume he would want to do that again in this case,” he said.

The day HB-2 was passed, Cooper appeared in a video address accusing North Carolina’s governor of political opportunism. “It’s a time for leadership, but Governor McCrory is now standing on the sidelines, letting the loudest, most extreme voices run the show,” he said. “We need a governor who will put our state first, not wait to see which way the political winds are blowing.”

The passing of the HB-2 and Cooper’s opposition to it could not come at a more crucial time for the state’s attorney general: Polls place him neck-in-neck with McCrory in North Carolina’s 2016 gubernatorial election.

Photo: Roy Cooper addressing North Carolinians on March 23 to comment on special session that led to signing of HB-2 this week. Roy Cooper/Youtube

Tags:

41 Comments

  1. ray March 29, 2016

    I agree with Roy Cooper. Why defend a unconstitutional law?

    Reply
    1. Otto T. Goat March 29, 2016

      How is the law unconstitutional?

      Reply
      1. ray March 29, 2016

        Well just have to wait and see.

        Reply
      2. Independent1 March 29, 2016

        Transgender people are American citizens just like you with the same rights; just because you disagree with their sexual orientation does not give you or anyone else the right to discriminate against them or set laws that put restrictions on their inalienable rights granted by the Constitution (they are not criminals).

        Reply
        1. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

          There is no constitutional right to use whatever bathroom you want.

          Reply
          1. Independent1 March 30, 2016

            No but if a bathroom is set up for the general public to the exclusion of some sector of the population THAT IS DISCRIMINATION AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

            Reply
          2. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

            Sex specific bathrooms are not unconstitutional, you lunatic. Why does it not surprise me you are really passionate about getting in the ladies’ room.

            Reply
          3. Independent1 March 30, 2016

            And there comes another nonsensical response from Otto – I’m not aware of any organization that sets up a bathroom just for one gender at the exclusion of the other gender. There are virtually always two bathrooms, one for each gender, thereby not being discriminatory. Let’s see you identify for me some organization that has up one bathroom designated for one gender while refusing to let the other gender use it.

            Reply
          4. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

            This law overturns local ordinances allowing men to use to women’s bathrooms. You claimed that’s unconstitutional.

            Reply
          5. tomtype March 30, 2016

            This law overturns a local ordinance that allows people to use the restroom of their assumed gender. If they believe they are women, then they use the women’s room, and if they believe they are men, they use the men’s room. This is not to allow men to use the women’s room. The issue is how to you distinguish men who believe they are men, from “men” who know/believe they are actually women, act like women, and wish to change what they feel are wrong gender assignments.

            Reply
          6. tomtype March 30, 2016

            There is also no constitutional right to keep people out of a restroom.

            Reply
      3. FireBaron March 30, 2016

        Very easy, Otto. The 14th Amendment guarantees “equal protection under the law”. When a specific law is passed to exclude that protection, it does not meet the test of that Amendment. Once Plessey v. Fergusson was overturned by Brown v Board of Education based on the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause, that showed many laws and regulations passed in the South that excluded people of color from inclusion, the gates were opened for other formerly restricted groups, including Catholics, Jews, Latinos, etc.
        Oh, and yes, for once I am responding to you operating under the assumption that you are a somewhat decently educated adult. Please do not prove me wrong by your usual replies.

        Reply
        1. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

          The 14th Amendment applies to government. This law overrides local ordinances interfering with the association of private individuals.

          Reply
          1. Mikey7a March 30, 2016

            Wrong again Otto!
            Amendment XIV
            Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Reply
          2. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

            I’m right, as usual, “No state” means the government.

            Reply
          3. Independent1 March 30, 2016

            Wrong again Otto – since citizens have to abide by the laws of a state and a state cannot make laws that allow their citizens to act in a way that is contrary to the 14th Amendment, then by regulating the states, the 14th Amendment also regulates the citizens who live in that state.

            Reply
          4. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

            Citizens are free to “act contrary to the 14th Amendment”, since it does not apply to individuals, it applies to states. Ask any lawyer.

            Reply
          5. charleo1 March 30, 2016

            You are trying to couch the argument in terms of the State law’s jurisdiction being superseded by an individual’s personal or religious preference. And our system just doesn’t work that way in this country. All who are within the borders of the United States are subject to the duly written, and Constitutionally supported laws, and regulations of the various levels of government. With Federal Law superseding the State, and Local Laws, in the event conflicting laws are enacted. The system you are advocating is similar to the way Islamic, or Shira Laws are enacted and enforced. It’s absolutely true! Shira Law begins at the local level, decided by a group of quasi elected, or self appointed community leaders, who decree if a religious, traditional, or tribal law has been broken. And how, or whether then, under the Quran, and circumstances surrounding the offense in question, the offender is to be punished, or exonerated. And this extends certainly to deliberate discrimination. But also to rape, and even vigilante homicide, or honor killings, in what those local leaders may consider as running afoul of religious Law. Then whatever these local elders so decide, is backed up by the power of a Theocratic State. So how great is that for putting some real muscle behind protecting Religious freedoms?

            Reply
          6. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

            This law is not in conflict with any federal law.

            Reply
          7. tomtype March 30, 2016

            It is actually in conflict, when applied to schools, with several federal laws governing how school are to act toward students.

            Reply
          8. charleo1 March 30, 2016

            So the Gays can be legally married in the morning, and fired off their jobs for doing so that afternoon. If that’s not a conflict, I don’t know what the word means.

            Reply
          9. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

            In most places, yes.

            Reply
          10. charleo1 March 31, 2016

            If the situation applied to you, you’d care, I’ll guarantee it. So what’s wrong with the Golden Rule? You don’t believe in it, do you?

            Reply
          11. tomtype March 30, 2016

            Obviously any individual can act contrary to the law and then the state can take action. Individuals have always acted as they wish. But individuals cannot pass laws. Anyone who objects to anyone in a restroom is free to leave. Nothing says you have to stay in any public restroom, except perhaps nature’s call. But you do not have permission to keep that person out if they believe they are of the gender that is assigned to that restroom.

            Reply
          12. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

            You’re so horribly confused I wonder if you are a trans.

            Reply
          13. tomtype March 30, 2016

            No state government. What other legal existence does a state have?

            Reply
          14. tomtype March 30, 2016

            That is also local, state, and national government. When the state of NC passes a law that prevents citizens or residents from exercising their free association, the state government is in trouble. Who else but governments pass laws?

            Reply
          15. tomtype March 30, 2016

            That is right. The NC state bill does interfere with the free association of transgendered people. That should be obvious even to you. That is why it was passed.

            Reply
  2. Otto T. Goat March 29, 2016

    If he doesn’t want to do his job he should resign.

    Reply
    1. ray March 29, 2016

      You are right Otto and all of the repug senators should resign too.

      Reply
    2. charleo1 March 30, 2016

      Perhaps he is. Did you ever think of that? Defending clearly unConstitutional laws passed by idiots pandering to religious zealots was probably not included in his oath of office.

      Reply
      1. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

        It’s not unconstitutional.

        Reply
    3. Böcker March 30, 2016

      Why?? Because you think so?? It doesn’t work that way. BTW this bill doesn’t pass constitution muster.

      Reply
    4. tomtype March 30, 2016

      He is doing his job. He is pointing out the obviously unconsitutional aspects of this law, which is also an important part of practicing law, especially at the State Attorney General level. Why would any legislator want to pass an obviously unconstitutional bill, only to get sued and having it struck down and in that entire process spending, nay wasting, a lot of money. I believe that is what constitutional conservatives call squandering money, and pandering to the public. Why not just educate the public that there is no danger here, move on folks.

      Reply
      1. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

        How is it unconstitutional?

        Reply
        1. Mikey7a March 30, 2016

          Otto, as FireBaron explained the 14th Amendment to you in an earlier post, you are asking the same question repeatedly, for one of two reasons. Either you are against The Constitution, or FireBaron sadly made the incorrect assumption. Of course, I am certain he knew the latter statement, was spot on. You are nothing more than a paid Republican Troll, like your buddy Paulyz, or just an ignorant bigot.

          Reply
          1. Otto T. Goat March 30, 2016

            This law doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment, it simply repeals local pro-gay ordinances and protects freedom of association.

            Reply
          2. tomtype March 30, 2016

            They are not “pro-gay” but rather treating all citizens the same, and not separating out some because of gender or orientation. That makes them pro-citizen. What is so hard to understand about that?

            Reply
    5. Sand_Cat April 1, 2016

      Missed your post saying the same about Kim Davis.

      Reply
  3. charleo1 March 30, 2016

    So, from “Conservative,” S. Senator Phil Berger’s, perch the concept of equal protection, stipulated by laws prohibiting the singling out of certain citizens of his State not already protected against such discrimination, are the problem. Therefore such laws that seek to include this group under the same equal protections as other minorities from all type of singling out, must be specifically prohibited. So as to protect, the abridgment of this not as yet specifically mentioned, group’s Rights. And anything less I would imagine in Sen. Berger’s world, is part of a Leftist/Communist agenda designed to ruin America, or some such. And by those standards, the standards of the majority of the Right, AG.Roy Cooper’s refusal to take the State’s side in this, and defend the law against the multiple lawsuits it will engender, and the tax money it will squander, is nothing more than his pandering to a radical Left. Which of course, hates God, and everything America is supposed to stand for. And furthermore/*#!%#.. Blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah!!!

    Reply
  4. Böcker March 30, 2016

    Doing Art Pope’s bidding can get expensive, so is Art going to pony up the money to defend this POS???

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.