• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

AG Roy Cooper Refuses to Defend State in HB2

MysteryMen said:
So if the state passes a law that says black people can't vote, he has to resign and we have to find an AG who is willing to defend it? Because the statute is crystal clear? Is that how the NC political system works in your view?
Click to expand...

So none of the "HE HAS A STATUTORY DUTY" folks want to confront this? Shocking
 
Because that is a stupid hypothetical. It is clear that your hypothetical would be unconstitutional. In the cases at hand that Cooper has decided to use for his personal political points, legitimate arguments can be made on both sides. And it is his job to advance the State's legitimate arguments.
 
So your distinction is between "clearly unconstitutional" and "Cooper's good faith belief that it's unconstitutional" and really the distinction you're drawing is "2&2 doesn't believe Cooper's 'good faith'"

Just want to make sure everyone is on the same page.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Because that is a stupid hypothetical. It is clear that your hypothetical would be unconstitutional. In the cases at hand that Cooper has decided to use for his personal political points, legitimate arguments can be made on both sides. And it is his job to advance the State's legitimate arguments.
Click to expand...

It's a political position. He has job responsibilities set by statute, but he also must answer to his constituents.
 
Of course I don't believe his good faith. Do you? Do you honestly believe that his decision had anything whatsoever to do with anything other than his own personal political campaign?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Of course I don't believe his good faith. Do you? Do you honestly believe that his decision had anything whatsoever to do with anything other than his own personal political campaign?
Click to expand...

I believe it is a combination of bolstering his campaign for governor and the fact that he believes the law is unconstitutional.
 
I haven't seen an analysis by anyone that isn't a conservative politician or conservative think tank make the point that this law is constitutional. So yes I think his decision had plenty to do with things other than his own personal political campaign. Humans are complex creatures and your insistence on portraying Cooper as this myopic beast who is unable to do anything other than gobble up political resources for his own gain just makes you look petty. That's why everyone keeps making jokes at your expense as to what Cooper personally did to you - because you look petty as hell.
 
The current law seems pretty clearly unconstitutional to me. Like how do you think we decide? Do we have a referendum and if 90% of the voters think it's unconstitutional then the AG doesn't have to defend it? But 89% he does? I'm just curious how you think we decide when the AG can decide not to defend the law and when he can't
 
MysteryMen said:
The current law seems pretty clearly unconstitutional to me. Like how do you think we decide? Do we have a referendum and if 90% of the voters think it's unconstitutional then the AG doesn't have to defend it? But 89% he does? I'm just curious how you think we decide when the AG can decide not to defend the law and when he can't
Click to expand...

2&2 decides if it can be defended or not and if the answer is "it can," the AG has to defend it unless 2&2 agrees with them politically - and then it's a "good faith" determination.
 
MysteryMen said:
The current law seems pretty clearly unconstitutional to me. Like how do you think we decide? Do we have a referendum and if 90% of the voters think it's unconstitutional then the AG doesn't have to defend it? But 89% he does? I'm just curious how you think we decide when the AG can decide not to defend the law and when he can't
Click to expand...

Pretty sure we elected him because the people determined he was better suited to do this than other people.

Right?

I'm sure 2and2 and accomplished more in his life than Cooper, and probably the 2 guys who wrote the Yale article combined.
 
MysteryMen said:
The current law seems pretty clearly unconstitutional to me. Like how do you think we decide? Do we have a referendum and if 90% of the voters think it's unconstitutional then the AG doesn't have to defend it? But 89% he does? I'm just curious how you think we decide when the AG can decide not to defend the law and when he can't
Click to expand...

No, there is no decision to be made other than his. You are confusing two separate concepts: (a) the statutory duty of his position to appear, with (b) his individual ethical obligation as an attorney not to advance positions that he cannot effectively support. His duty in his position is appear. If he personally can't in good faith represent his client, then his duty is to resign. Appear or resign, that is the only decision to be made.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, there is no decision to be made other than his. You are confusing two separate concepts: (a) the statutory duty of his position to appear, with (b) his individual ethical obligation as an attorney not to advance positions that he cannot effectively support. His duty in his position is appear. If he personally can't in good faith represent his client, then his duty is to resign. Appear or resign, that is the only decision to be made.
Click to expand...

His ethical duties, and duty to uphold the constitution, come before his statutory duties. There is nothing in the text of the statute that says he must either appear or resign.
 
Ball State Deac said:
Surely there is a colorable defense to this law though, right?
Click to expand...

Yes that romer doesn't control because that amendment expressly referenced classes that couldn't be protected and this one doesn't do that (it broadly prevents ANY law from being passed beyond the state floor). I don't think this is persuasive but o would call it colorable.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, there is no decision to be made other than his. You are confusing two separate concepts: (a) the statutory duty of his position to appear, with (b) his individual ethical obligation as an attorney not to advance positions that he cannot effectively support. His duty in his position is appear. If he personally can't in good faith represent his client, then his duty is to resign. Appear or resign, that is the only decision to be made.
Click to expand...

Right...so how is this different than if there was a law banning blacks from voting, as in my hypo? Why wouldn't that be an appear or resign situation? Or maybe you think it would?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Pretty sure we elected him because the people determined he was better suited to do this than other people.

Right?

I'm sure 2and2 and accomplished more in his life than Cooper, and probably the 2 guys who wrote the Yale article combined.
Click to expand...

fuck you doofus
 
MysteryMen said:
Right...so how is this different than if there was a law banning blacks from voting, as in my hypo? Why wouldn't that be an appear or resign situation? Or maybe you think it would?
Click to expand...

He still has to appear for it because a lawsuit has been formally filed against the state so someone has to file an Answer, which I think is what you all are not understanding. The AG is the State's attorney by statute and must make that appearance. Otherwise, the result is that the State takes a default judgment, which would be completely ridiculous (i.e. if the lawsuit asked for $10 billion in damages and the AG didn't appear to file an Answer, then the plaintiff would win the $10 billion from the state simply because no Answer was filed). So somebody needs to appear and Answer for the State in any situation; if he personally won't do it then he needs to resign so that somebody else can in the AG's capacity as dictated by the statute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top