• 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

ThreadDelivers.jpg
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
County Clerks have a significant amount of substantive discretion, which likely affects more people on a daily basis than any substantive discretion of the AG.
Click to expand...

Not in the context of approving or denying marriage licenses. Read her job description it's wholly procedural and based on if the paperwork is right.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
His express role is to represent the state in all legal proceedings in which it is named. That is the statutory purpose of his position. Nobody is asking him to proactively initiate a lawsuit determining the constitutional validity of the statute; the only way that his duty to appear would arise would be if someone else initiate the lawsuit, in which case his duty is to appear for the state and defend it. As of yet, no such lawsuit has been filed (to my knowledge). As such, there is absolutely, positively, no reason whatsoever for him to come out now and state his opinion on the constitutionality of the law, other than his own personal political gain in an election that is outside the scope of his current job. And for that alone, he should be fired immediately.

And the duty to uphold the constitution is a completely different matter than the statutory purpose of his position and pretty much irrelevant in this setting. Every NC lawyer takes the oath to uphold the NC Constitution, and I think every lawyer in the US takes the oath to uphold the US Constitution. That doesn't mean that their personal interpretation of gray areas of the Constitution prevent Constitutional challenges; if that were the case then arguably there would never be any Constitutional challenges unless the lawyers themselves were on board with the actual aggrieved parties, which I would bet is rarely the case.

Finally, despite the AG being a separate elected office, nowhere in the statutes does it say that the purpose of said office is to "serve as a check against the legislature or governor." That is simply not the role of that office. All of the libs railed against that County Clerk who wouldn't do her job and sign the gay marriage certificates; Cooper not doing his job in representing the state is basically the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

1. Nothing about Cooper's role as AG prevents him from stating his personal opinion on the constitutionality of the law. In fact, part of his duties as AG involve developing a professional opinion on the constitutionality of the law.

2. The AG's role as a check on the governor and legislature is a structural argument rather than a textual one. Why else would AG be an elected position rather than an appointment (like it is at the federal level).
 
RChildress107 said:
1. Nothing about Cooper's role as AG prevents him from stating his personal opinion on the constitutionality of the law. In fact, part of his duties as AG involve developing a professional opinion on the constitutionality of the law.

2. The AG's role as a check on the governor and legislature is a structural argument rather than a textual one. Why else would AG be an elected position rather than an appointment (like it is at the federal level).
Click to expand...

1. And if his professional opinion is that it is clear-cut unconstitutional to the point where he is unable to represent the state in an action in which it has been named, then he needs to resign and let someone else do it. This is the core element of his job, he can't just not do it; if that is the case then it isn't the right job for him (which it clearly isn't given his past performance).

2. How the AG gets his job is irrelevant. It is a position created and defined by statute with specific and crystal clear statutory duties. The State has been sued, it is his job to defend that suit. Period. If he can't do the job, for whatever reason, then he needs to resign.
 
The first dude has been published in over 200 different articles/books/media sources after graduating from Vandy undergrad and Georgetown law school.

The second dude graduated from Stanford undergrad and was the Senior Editor of the Yale Law Review at their law school. He also clerked for a SCOTUS judge.

I won't pretend to know what your pedigree is, but if you have done more than those two, then HOLY SHIT we are in the presence of somebody who is incredibly accomplished.
 
Sounds like two people who have never actually done anything meaningful other than prop themselves up in the relatively useless world of academia (no offense, PH). That doesn't count for much, at least not to me.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Sounds like two people who have never actually done anything meaningful other than prop themselves up in the relatively useless world of academia (no offense, PH). That doesn't count for much, at least not to me.
Click to expand...

Clerking for the SCOTUS doesn't count much to you?
Senior Editor for the Yale Law Review doesn't count much to you?

What world are you living in?
 
The world outside the bubble of law school / academia. The kids I knew in law school at Duke who went for law review or clerkships were the ones who didn't have any real world experience to capitalize on, and seemed to be the ones who had trouble relating their book knowledge to the outside world. Maybe that is different at Yale, but I seriously doubt it. I didn't put much stock in those sort of manufactured accolades then, and I certainly don't now (especially after reading that garbage law review article).
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
The world outside the bubble of law school / academia. The kids I knew in law school at Duke who went for law review or clerkships were the ones who didn't have any real world experience to capitalize on, and seemed to be the ones who had trouble relating their book knowledge to the outside world. Maybe that is different at Yale, but I seriously doubt it. I didn't put much stock in those sort of manufactured accolades then, and I certainly don't now (especially after reading that garbage law review article).
Click to expand...

Why pussyfoot around 2&2? They're fucking NERDS, that's what they are. Just a couple of fucking nerds.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
1. And if his professional opinion is that it is clear-cut unconstitutional to the point where he is unable to represent the state in an action in which it has been named, then he needs to resign and let someone else do it. This is the core element of his job, he can't just not do it; if that is the case then it isn't the right job for him (which it clearly isn't given his past performance).

2. How the AG gets his job is irrelevant. It is a position created and defined by statute with specific and crystal clear statutory duties. The State has been sued, it is his job to defend that suit. Period. If he can't do the job, for whatever reason, then he needs to resign.
Click to expand...

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?
 
I think I've got it figured out: 2&2 IS Pat McCrory.

But let's be serious, these two guys know more about this topic than all of us do 2&2 don't flatter yourself.
 
To hell with those ivory tower guys though. I need to know how this works in the REAL WORLD when REAL MEN argue about the duty to defend possibly/probably/perhaps unconstitutional laws.
 
Deacon923 said:
To hell with those ivory tower guys though. I need to know how this works in the REAL WORLD when REAL MEN argue about the duty to defend possibly/probably/perhaps unconstitutional laws.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 2&2 is acting like there's some gladiator's arena where this normally plays out. The entire concept of a "duty to defend" is academic and based on the statute - which the Yale Journal posted above deals with as it looks at the constitutional and statutory duties of all 50 states.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah, 2&2 is acting like there's some gladiator's arena where this normally plays out. The entire concept of a "duty to defend" is academic and based on the statute - which the Yale Journal posted above deals with as it looks at the constitutional and statutory duties of all 50 states.
Click to expand...

I mean yeah, the courtroom would be said arena. And without looking, I imagine that neither of those two have ever meaningfully battled in one.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
1. And if his professional opinion is that it is clear-cut unconstitutional to the point where he is unable to represent the state in an action in which it has been named, then he needs to resign and let someone else do it. This is the core element of his job, he can't just not do it; if that is the case then it isn't the right job for him (which it clearly isn't given his past performance).

2. How the AG gets his job is irrelevant. It is a position created and defined by statute with specific and crystal clear statutory duties. The State has been sued, it is his job to defend that suit. Period. If he can't do the job, for whatever reason, then he needs to resign.
Click to expand...

The position is created by the N.C. Constitution which specifically states it shall be an elected position.
 
Hesitant to weigh in and cause 2&2 to have to take extra blood pressure medicine, but I believe part of Cooper's explanation was that the new legislation conflicts with the existing policies of the State Treasurer's Office (and AG's Office), so to the extent he has clients with adverse legal interests, he is opting to represent his client the Treasurer's Office as opposed to his client the Governor. This does happen from time to time - 2 state agencies will be adverse to each other and the AG's Office can't represent both. Take a deep breath, 2&2, and maybe a swig of mylanta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top