• 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

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the NCGA passed a bill allowing them to hire outside counsel to represent them in defending laws they have passed. So by operation of statute N.C. wouldn't suffer a default judgment if the AG didn't show up.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
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.
Click to expand...

He's not obligated to appear on behalf of a law that violates his ethical duty to uphold either the Constitution of North Carolina or the Constitution of the United States. You may very well take issue with the sincerity of any ethical conflict that Cooper might claim, but nowhere in the law, at least to my knowledge, is he obligated to resign simply because he does not appear on behalf of the State within this context.

Truth be told, the GA and the Governor don't actually want him to defend this law. They'd rather appropriate funds from the GA to hire counsel that better suits them. To the extent that they're saying the AG should "do his job," they're playing politics in the same way you allege Cooper is.

You keep referencing "the statute says he must appear," but you aren't really grappling with the point that the statute is not the only thing that dictates his conduct. In fact, the statute is near the bottom of the legal framework that directs the AG's conduct, below his obligation to the both constitutions and his ethical and moral obligations as an attorney, and right above the purely discretionary actions he is permitted to take not defined in the law otherwise.
 
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...

You are confusing the ethical obligations of an attorney in private practice and one in public practice. He has an ethical duty to represent all of the citizens of the state. His responsibilities go beyond blind advocacy.
 
And the citizens of the state elected a legislature that adopted the law. That is who he represents. He has a duty to represent the citizens of the state as a whole, not each individual citizen; otherwise he could never prosecute or defend anything against anybody, as he would always have a conflict if he theoretically also represents that individual person.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
And the citizens of the state elected a legislature that adopted the law. That is who he represents. He has a duty to represent the citizens of the state as a whole, not each individual citizen; otherwise he could never prosecute or defend anything against anybody, as he would always have a conflict if he theoretically also represents that individual person.
Click to expand...

Wrong. For example, a prosecutor has the same duties, yet can still prosecute criminals. They just must do so in a manner that is consistent with the law and the constitution. The Attorney General is the top prosecutor in the State.
 
Another point to 2&2. You do realize the hypocrisy of claiming that Cooper is purely a political animal? He most certainly is a politician, and some if not much of his behavior in office is influenced by that reality. But he's no different from any other politician in that respect.

The hypocrisy, at least to me, rests in the idea that HB2 is nothing more than a cynical political act/calculation. The law addresses no real problem or crisis with respect to the LGBT community. There is no data, not even any real anecdotal evidence, that suggests that transgender people pose any risk to the general population in bathrooms and locker rooms. The law is designed to do two things: 1) rile up the base, and 2) dramatically change the face of labor and employment law in North Carolina in a way that favor corporations, the rich, and the powerful without drawing much attention to that specific change.

There hasn't been any honest discussion about these two issues or open and fair debate about whether they're appropriate changes to the law of the State of North Carolina. They were rammed through a special session without any honest or thoughtful debate at all. Most conservatives, even those that are poor and middle class, will applaud this bill not realizing it is another in a long line of actions that step on the little guy in favor of the powerful.

I can't take you seriously when you complain about Cooper's political behavior when he is reacting to a Governor and a GA that have behaved in the most crude, destructive, and politically calculating manner imaginable over the last several years. This most recent bill is just the latest example. As the duly elected members of the GA and the Governor's mansion, the GOP have the legal right to behave as they have. Now it's up to voters to decide what to do about it. It's not clear that the GOP will lose in the next election. This State is very conservative. But please realize the absurdity of your complaints with respect to Cooper.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
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.
Click to expand...

So that's your answer? No matter how ridiculous the law is, if the AG won't file an answer defending the law, he should resign?
 
Jamison2Carter said:
He's not obligated to appear on behalf of a law that violates his ethical duty to uphold either the Constitution of North Carolina or the Constitution of the United States. You may very well take issue with the sincerity of any ethical conflict that Cooper might claim, but nowhere in the law, at least to my knowledge, is he obligated to resign simply because he does not appear on behalf of the State within this context.

Truth be told, the GA and the Governor don't actually want him to defend this law. They'd rather appropriate funds from the GA to hire counsel that better suits them. To the extent that they're saying the AG should "do his job," they're playing politics in the same way you allege Cooper is.

You keep referencing "the statute says he must appear," but you aren't really grappling with the point that the statute is not the only thing that dictates his conduct. In fact, the statute is near the bottom of the legal framework that directs the AG's conduct, below his obligation to the both constitutions and his ethical and moral obligations as an attorney, and right above the purely discretionary actions he is permitted to take not defined in the law otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes, and funnel money to their politically connected private firm.
 
Based on the discussion here, if there is a colorable defense, would seem to me that the AG's office should defend it. But I also don't really care that much about this law one way or the other, as it will almost certainly be repealed or overturned.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
And the citizens of the state elected a legislature that adopted the law. That is who he represents. He has a duty to represent the citizens of the state as a whole, not each individual citizen; otherwise he could never prosecute or defend anything against anybody, as he would always have a conflict if he theoretically also represents that individual person.
Click to expand...

They also elected an AG who is refusing to defend the law.
 
Does anyone know if the North Carolina AG swears an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution? A lot of state officers do. If so, that would be another ground for not defending the law
 
Any thoughts on the less talked about provision blocking people from pursuing employment discrimination claims in state courts?
 
Deadbolt said:
Any thoughts on the less talked about provision blocking people from pursuing employment discrimination claims in state courts?
Click to expand...

Do other states have similar provisions? What's the reasoning behind this?
 
I believe that list is also just Mississippi and North Carolina. And I imagine that it's to discourage suits against employers.
 
1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top