NC Rescinds Charlotte HRO

[Tacachale]

If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about. Then, in North Carolina, anti-LGBT politicians actually enact real "bathroom bills" that legislate what bathrooms people can and can't use. I'm sure they don't like to think about this as discrimination, but it is.

As far as the candidates go, Trump doesn't focus on LGBT issues particularly. He's adopted some of the Republican rhetoric about marriage in the last year or two, but that's about it. Cruz is pretty consistently against LGBT rights, and talks about it regularly.

I agree, what starts as a bathroom arrangement gets blown into a full "manage LGBT" issue, and I object to that.

As far as practicality, it usually referred to where to put gender neutral facilities in government or public schools.

What I'm saying is that the issue of bathrooms is a very small part of the local HROs, if it's even part at all. The Jacksonville HRO, for instance, didn't mention bathrooms. And even for the ones like Charlotte that did, any change is exceedingly minimal because a significant portion of trans people already use the bathroom of their gender identity. Many local HROs only deal with gender orientation, leaving out trans people (and therefore their bathroom habits) entirely.

What the HROs are really about is protecting people from getting fired, evicted, or denied service because of their sexual orientation and identity. The focus on the barely-if-at-all relevant bathroom element is just a tactic to prevent HROs from passing.

As far as the fear factor that people bring up on gender identity in the bathrooms, the habit is to reach for the base instinct and say crime will immediately occur.

At a former employer in Chicago we actually did have a cross dresser issue where males dressed as women were entering the womens can and attempting to peep.

In response, building management put combination locks on all the womens bathrooms and gave them a code only women knew.

Does that happen all the time? Of course not, but being a risk adverse culture now where lawsuits are the norm, some businesses feel like they are stuck on how to respond specifically to the concept of "identity".

Obviously, these bills don't prevent businesses from acting in the rare, anecdotal case of someone peeping or otherwise being disruptive. It's the disruption that's the problem, not the identity. You could still fire a gay employee for embezzling or evict a gay tenant for running a meth lab.

The NAACP kicked out a lady recently because she identified as black, when in reality she wasnt. Is that different?

I think that is what most people are struggling with, is that concept of identity.  When it isnt clear what identity works in all cases, the laws have to compensate, hence the bathroom laws.

The Rachel Dolezal case is different if only because there have only been a handful of cases in all of American history of a white person adopting a black identity. Most cases have involved white people trying to benefit in some way by claiming to be black, usually temporarily. For instance, the white firefighters trying to take advantage of affirmative action laws, or two different white politicians trying to win races in minority districts. In contrast, there are about 700,000 trans people in the U.S.

I will say that I think you're right that a lot of people just don't understand the identity issue. That's why a lot of HROs leave out trans people.

[Tacachale]

If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about.

If so, why not take them out of the ordinances altogether ? Are bathroom accommodations really the key part that the ordinances would be worthless without ?

See my last comment. Many if not most of these local HROs don't actually involve bathroom accommodations specifically. Many others don't include trans rights at all, and only focus on lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. The focus on the bathroom issue is almost entirely a cynical ploy by the anti-HRO side. It's just one of the major things they can focus on to torpedo the rest of the protections.

Still, I think in the future we will see bills coming up that go out of their way not to include bathrooms, and possibly transgender people at all, as the "bathroom bill" ploy seems to be working.

[FlaBoy]

wow. North Carolina's Attorney General declares the anti gay law unconstitutional and announces that his office will not be defending the law in any court.

As reported earlier, the ACLU will be suing the state of North Carolina over it's bigoted transgender discrimination law.

In addition, a number of states an municipalities, including New York State, are banning non-essential state travel to North Carolina.

Now one person says he will not participate in defending this law, and his participation matters, a lot.

He's the state's Attorney General.

This is the equivalent of your own defense lawyer telling the judge you're guilty as sin and walking out of the courtroom. Yahoo Politics:

According to Cooper, House Bill 2 (HB2) is in direct conflict with nondiscrimination policies at North Carolina's justice department and treasurer's office, as well as many of the state's businesses. Though the LGBT community is targeted, he said, it could ultimately result in the discrimination of other groups as well.

"House Bill 2 is unconstitutional," he said. "Therefore, our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit, nor future lawsuits involving the constitutionality of House Bill 2."

Attorney General does not have this discretion and is breaking the law by not enforcing the law. If the Legislature and Governor have created and authorized the law, it should be followed. If there are problems, and someone has standing, they can file suit. This is similar to the Kentucky clerk who disagreed with passing out marriage licenses to gay couples. At least she was personally opposed and just wanted someone else to do it for her. This joker won't let his office enforce it. Too bad. Writ of Mandamus anyone? LOL. It is straight out of the Obama administration's book though.

see below. it differs from state to state and its not as clearcut as you seem to believe.

...but it's not the attorney general's place to decide what laws to follow, and which are constitutional....

It's not that simple.  Here's a good overview of this issue:  http://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/state-attorneys-general-and-the-duty-to-defend

So this is a debate that goes back to the Founding. Jefferson, for example, saw the Supreme Court as an advisory body rather than a body that was the final arbiter of constitutional issues. In the end, the Courts do not have final say. The Constitutional officers that enforce the law do. In Marbury v. Madison, Jefferson told the Court he wasn't going to follow what they said. They gave him his outcome, which he of course followed, which lead to precedent for the Court. Jefferson believed he was the ultimate arbiter with the Congress.

But, hypothetically, if Ted Cruz were to become President and appoint Marco Rubio as Attorney General, but the Democrats take back the Senate in 2016, essentially creating gridlock, would you think it is within the purview of the President and Attorney General to no longer enforce Obamacare (the mandate, the state exchanges, and tax code) which would render Obamacare useless and basically revert to the previous system? Seemingly, the President and Attorney General could do this on any law but this type of blatant disregard for the law that the people's representatives passed. In the end, who can do what is based upon what the public allows and legitimizes e.g. the Supreme Court.

[Gunnar]

If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about.

If so, why not take them out of the ordinances altogether ? Are bathroom accommodations really the key part that the ordinances would be worthless without ?

See my last comment. Many if not most of these local HROs don't actually involve bathroom accommodations specifically. Many others don't include trans rights at all, and only focus on lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. The focus on the bathroom issue is almost entirely a cynical ploy by the anti-HRO side. It's just one of the major things they can focus on to torpedo the rest of the protections.

Still, I think in the future we will see bills coming up that go out of their way not to include bathrooms, and possibly transgender people at all, as the "bathroom bill" ploy seems to be working.

Thanks for the clarification. I am not saying that trans people should be left out at all, just that if the bathroom issue is what allows opponents to torpedo the bills then leave them out.

[Tacachale]

If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about.

If so, why not take them out of the ordinances altogether ? Are bathroom accommodations really the key part that the ordinances would be worthless without ?

See my last comment. Many if not most of these local HROs don't actually involve bathroom accommodations specifically. Many others don't include trans rights at all, and only focus on lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. The focus on the bathroom issue is almost entirely a cynical ploy by the anti-HRO side. It's just one of the major things they can focus on to torpedo the rest of the protections.

Still, I think in the future we will see bills coming up that go out of their way not to include bathrooms, and possibly transgender people at all, as the "bathroom bill" ploy seems to be working.

Thanks for the clarification. I am not saying that trans people should be left out at all, just that if the bathroom issue is what allows opponents to torpedo the bills then leave them out.

I hear you. I think that's just what we'll have to do from now on. And I'm definitely not saying that trans people should be left out either, but in a lot of places it may be the only way to get any protections passed.

[finehoe]

The NAACP kicked out a lady recently because she identified as black, when in reality she wasnt.

Rachel Dolezal, wasn't "kicked out," she resigned.  In fact, the NAACP issued a statement supporting her:  http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-statement-on-rachel-dolezal

[FlaBoy]

wow. North Carolina's Attorney General declares the anti gay law unconstitutional and announces that his office will not be defending the law in any court.

As reported earlier, the ACLU will be suing the state of North Carolina over it's bigoted transgender discrimination law.

In addition, a number of states an municipalities, including New York State, are banning non-essential state travel to North Carolina.

Now one person says he will not participate in defending this law, and his participation matters, a lot.

He's the state's Attorney General.

This is the equivalent of your own defense lawyer telling the judge you're guilty as sin and walking out of the courtroom. Yahoo Politics:

According to Cooper, House Bill 2 (HB2) is in direct conflict with nondiscrimination policies at North Carolina's justice department and treasurer's office, as well as many of the state's businesses. Though the LGBT community is targeted, he said, it could ultimately result in the discrimination of other groups as well.

"House Bill 2 is unconstitutional," he said. "Therefore, our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit, nor future lawsuits involving the constitutionality of House Bill 2."

Attorney General does not have this discretion and is breaking the law by not enforcing the law. If the Legislature and Governor have created and authorized the law, it should be followed. If there are problems, and someone has standing, they can file suit. This is similar to the Kentucky clerk who disagreed with passing out marriage licenses to gay couples. At least she was personally opposed and just wanted someone else to do it for her. This joker won't let his office enforce it. Too bad. Writ of Mandamus anyone? LOL. It is straight out of the Obama administration's book though.

see below. it differs from state to state and its not as clearcut as you seem to believe.

...but it's not the attorney general's place to decide what laws to follow, and which are constitutional....

It's not that simple.  Here's a good overview of this issue:  http://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/state-attorneys-general-and-the-duty-to-defend

So this is a debate that goes back to the Founding. Jefferson, for example, saw the Supreme Court as an advisory body rather than a body that was the final arbiter of constitutional issues. In the end, the Courts do not have final say. The Constitutional officers that enforce the law do. In Marbury v. Madison, Jefferson told the Court he wasn't going to follow what they said. They gave him his outcome, which he of course followed, which lead to precedent for the Court. Jefferson believed he was the ultimate arbiter with the Congress.

But, hypothetically, if Ted Cruz were to become President and appoint Marco Rubio as Attorney General, but the Democrats take back the Senate in 2016, essentially creating gridlock, would you think it is within the purview of the President and Attorney General to no longer enforce Obamacare (the mandate, the state exchanges, and tax code) which would render Obamacare useless and basically revert to the previous system? Seemingly, the President and Attorney General could do this on any law but this type of blatant disregard for the law that the people's representatives passed. In the end, who can do what is based upon what the public allows and legitimizes e.g. the Supreme Court.

Im pretty sure that the debate about the supremacy of the Federal Government via the Constitution vs States Rights was settled in the Civil War.  Most of the people who agree with your viewpoint on this seem to have lost that war, btw.  In this case, the Attorney General believes the State Law to be unconstitutional.

Your argument is pretty much apples and oranges, right?  You are trying to use an imagined opinion of Jefferson's to justify the same States Rights nonsense that a whole bunch of people have already died to settle.

I mean, there is a reason why its called the "Supreme Court".

First, an issue of the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution is constantly discussed in hypotheticalsJefferson said, "You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. but nothing in the constitution has given them a right to decide for the executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the constitution. That instrument meant that it's co-ordinate branches should be checks on each other but the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-0348
https://www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib013811/

Second, I was not speaking to supremacy although there is no federal law addressing sexual orientation or transgender discrimination. I was speaking to enforcement of law. Again, if President Ted Cruz and Attorney General Marco Rubio said the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional in their opinion and they would not enforce the mandate/tax, would you say they are breaking the law by not enforcing it? If Florida were to pass a law stating that transgender and sexual orientation should be protected, but Pam Bondi refused to enforce it because she believed it to be unconstitutional as an overstep of government authority, what would you think?

[FlaBoy]

The Supreme Court has held over and over a rational basis test for sexual orientation or omitted the discussion entirely. As a result, gays and lesbians are not considered a protected class at this point. If this were to head to the Supreme Court, they may find issue under Romer but the constitutional amendment there specifically stated that gays could not be protected under law. The Court would have to use a disparate impact argument since this law on its face is not discriminatory. However, again, SCOTUS has never given gays and lesbians protected status or assessed any issue under strict scrutiny concerning gays or lesbians, only rational basis. This NC Law says all municipalities must be in line with the Civil Rights Act of the state. State law is supreme over local law since municipalities have no sovereignty.  Disparate impact, which is for protected classes unlike disparate treatment, is the strongest argument for the law being unconstitutional in part but SCOTUS has never taken that step. SCOTUS barely provides disparate impact actions at all of recent and even issues of sex (men and women) have been difficult for the Court to assess on a disparate impact level.

The bathroom issue is an interesting one. SCOTUS has never addressed transgenderism and would have to take a huge step in even recognizing transgenderism as a protected class or the lack of any rationale in having separate bathrooms by law under rational basis. They would have to walk a delicate balance. It is probably a step too far for Justice Kennedy IMO but we may see. It would be an interesting case though.

[FlaBoy]

If you were the Attorney General of Florida and our legislature decided to reinstate Jim Crow, what would your opinion be?

I would file suit in the Courts and an order would come down tomorrow saying the law is unconstitutional since that is settled law by both SCOTUS and Congress. Otherwise, I would resign my post since it goes against my own personal morality.

[FlaBoy]

If you were the Attorney General of Florida and our legislature decided to reinstate Jim Crow, what would your opinion be?

I would file suit in the Courts and an order would come down tomorrow saying the law is unconstitutional since that is settled law by both SCOTUS and Congress. Otherwise, I would resign my post since it goes against my own personal morality.

So you would say that the principle of nondiscrimination is settled law?

It is settled law that segregation of races is illegal.

[FlaBoy]

And incidentally, have you read the actual opinion issued by the Court in Windsor?

Aside from the pile of screech monkey excrement that your favorite former Supreme wrote in dissent, the majority opinion, (and therefore the actual Ruling) was pointedly clear on gender as the basis for denial of service, I should think.

Perhaps you haven't taken time to read it, or are unable to take a break from various ideas of states rights or non applicable state constitutional laws to have recollected the ruling?

I have read Windsor in full and written memorandum on the issue for interested clients since it logically affected benefits for companies. I can assure you that SCOTUS did not discuss whether sexual orientation was a protected class. They definitely hinted at the possibility but Justice Kennedy has apparently, in Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell, not granted protected status. Issues have revolved more around rational basis due process/equal protection, fundamental right of marriage, and in Windsor, hinted very strongly at state's rights issues interestingly, especially that the Federal Government could not treat different marriages from different states in a disparate way. Other courts have come to protected class status, just not SCOTUS.

[FlaBoy]

wow. North Carolina's Attorney General declares the anti gay law unconstitutional and announces that his office will not be defending the law in any court.

As reported earlier, the ACLU will be suing the state of North Carolina over it's bigoted transgender discrimination law.

In addition, a number of states an municipalities, including New York State, are banning non-essential state travel to North Carolina.

Now one person says he will not participate in defending this law, and his participation matters, a lot.

He's the state's Attorney General.

This is the equivalent of your own defense lawyer telling the judge you're guilty as sin and walking out of the courtroom. Yahoo Politics:

According to Cooper, House Bill 2 (HB2) is in direct conflict with nondiscrimination policies at North Carolina's justice department and treasurer's office, as well as many of the state's businesses. Though the LGBT community is targeted, he said, it could ultimately result in the discrimination of other groups as well.

"House Bill 2 is unconstitutional," he said. "Therefore, our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit, nor future lawsuits involving the constitutionality of House Bill 2."

Attorney General does not have this discretion and is breaking the law by not enforcing the law. If the Legislature and Governor have created and authorized the law, it should be followed. If there are problems, and someone has standing, they can file suit. This is similar to the Kentucky clerk who disagreed with passing out marriage licenses to gay couples. At least she was personally opposed and just wanted someone else to do it for her. This joker won't let his office enforce it. Too bad. Writ of Mandamus anyone? LOL. It is straight out of the Obama administration's book though.

see below. it differs from state to state and its not as clearcut as you seem to believe.

...but it's not the attorney general's place to decide what laws to follow, and which are constitutional....

It's not that simple.  Here's a good overview of this issue:  http://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/state-attorneys-general-and-the-duty-to-defend

So this is a debate that goes back to the Founding. Jefferson, for example, saw the Supreme Court as an advisory body rather than a body that was the final arbiter of constitutional issues. In the end, the Courts do not have final say. The Constitutional officers that enforce the law do. In Marbury v. Madison, Jefferson told the Court he wasn't going to follow what they said. They gave him his outcome, which he of course followed, which lead to precedent for the Court. Jefferson believed he was the ultimate arbiter with the Congress.

But, hypothetically, if Ted Cruz were to become President and appoint Marco Rubio as Attorney General, but the Democrats take back the Senate in 2016, essentially creating gridlock, would you think it is within the purview of the President and Attorney General to no longer enforce Obamacare (the mandate, the state exchanges, and tax code) which would render Obamacare useless and basically revert to the previous system? Seemingly, the President and Attorney General could do this on any law but this type of blatant disregard for the law that the people's representatives passed. In the end, who can do what is based upon what the public allows and legitimizes e.g. the Supreme Court.

Im pretty sure that the debate about the supremacy of the Federal Government via the Constitution vs States Rights was settled in the Civil War.  Most of the people who agree with your viewpoint on this seem to have lost that war, btw.  In this case, the Attorney General believes the State Law to be unconstitutional.

Your argument is pretty much apples and oranges, right?  You are trying to use an imagined opinion of Jefferson's to justify the same States Rights nonsense that a whole bunch of people have already died to settle.

I mean, there is a reason why its called the "Supreme Court".

First, an issue of the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution is constantly discussed in hypotheticalsJefferson said, "You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. but nothing in the constitution has given them a right to decide for the executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the constitution. That instrument meant that it's co-ordinate branches should be checks on each other but the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-0348
https://www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib013811/

Second, I was not speaking to supremacy although there is no federal law addressing sexual orientation or transgender discrimination. I was speaking to enforcement of law. Again, if President Ted Cruz and Attorney General Marco Rubio said the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional in their opinion and they would not enforce the mandate/tax, would you say they are breaking the law by not enforcing it? If Florida were to pass a law stating that transgender and sexual orientation should be protected, but Pam Bondi refused to enforce it because she believed it to be unconstitutional as an overstep of government authority, what would you think?

You didn't answer this.

[whyisjohngalt]

yawn

[FlaBoy]

Thats because in this instance, the issue is a red herring.  Whether or not a group of people has been designated a 'protected class' as the current hogwash on this issue keeps trying to point out, it still has no bearing on whether or not the State Constitution of North Carolina commands an Attorney General to defend a Law which he clearly believes to be Federally unconstitutional.

I mean, I can see why you might want to conflate these two issues, but there isn't a relevant point in doing so.

You seemed to be doubting that the general temperature of the Court is manifestly anti discriminatory in a sweeping and general way, ----especially in LGBT issues, because they are not a 'protected class' whilst simultaneously arguing in the next post that the Court itself seems to be debating whether or not LGBT people should be included as a protected class.

Which seems terribly contradictory to the rest of your own argumentation on this, frankly. 

Especially in the context of Windsor.

If it is your contention that the Court struck down discriminatory prohibitions against LGBT marriage without specifically naming LGBT as a specifically protected group under the Civil Rights Act, then it seems manifest that the Court intends to rule against Discrimination even in the absence of a group designation.

Which would seem to corroborate, not contradict the position of the North Carolina Attorney General.

In fact, one is forced to that conclusion.

Seems odd that an attorney who has written briefs about Windsor for clients would miss that obvious conclusion.

I wonder if you wouldn't mind getting back to the subject of your original claim:  That the State of North Carolina did not permit its Attorney General to make such decisions.

Would you mind pointing out which part of the North Carolina State Constitution you are basing this idea on?

State Constitutions can have such vagaries from one State to another.   Are you, in any way, qualified to speak on the Constitution of the State of North Carolina?

Copy and paste from some left wing legal website all you want. I am just telling you the facts. Accept them if you want. The Court rarely determines discrimination on disparate impact claims...rarely. I am not saying that the Court wouldn't, because they very well could as the facts continue to come out. They would look at legislative history, intent of law, etc., all that good stuff. However, you make blanket statements about the Court and its views will not serve you well long term. Also, to state that this would be a lock for your views would also be foolish.

If you want to play some legalese games about whether there is an explicit clause stating that someone elected to enforce the laws under the Governor should actually do its job, I am happy for you. Your hypocrisy would be amusing though if Pam Bondi were to not enforce a hypothetical transgender protected class law on private citizens/businesses because it is illegal under the First Amendment's free exercise clause. Then your tune would change pretty quick. But mine would not because I believe elected officials should enforce the law.

[FlaBoy]

Im not quite sure what you are talking about with the 'cut and paste' remark.  Im trying to engage you in a discussion based on the questions that you've asked me directly.

And Im also not sure if you are aware of how heavily your argumentation relies on an internal double standard.

Specifically this.  Your argument seems to be that the Attorney General cannot refuse to defend cases arising from this law. In fact, you argue, the Attorney General can't refuse, even if he implicitly believes it puts him in jeopardy of unConstitutional posture.  You claim this---without any real knowledge of North Carolina's Constitutional framework for his office (which neither of us are qualified to speak on authoritatively) because of an inherently nonlegalistic viewpoint of his responsibilities. "If you want to play some legalese games about whether there is an explicit clause stating that someone elected to enforce the laws under the Governor should actually do its job," i.e....It should be obvious that he 'should. It must be plainly decided within the context.

But when considering his decision, the same standard apparently doesn't apply.  In evaluating his reasoning, your whole belief that the answer should simply be obvious, in light of a string of Supreme Court Rulings within the past 18 month, is suddenly shoved into the basement with all the rest of the family mutants.  Left there to sit in the dark until its safe for friendlier visitors to see them...  You literally reverse yourself and claim now that the matter may not be plainly decided within context and base your objection on whether or not LGBT people have been officially designated  a protected class.

In my opinion this is the fatal flaw within your argument.

An argument which I understand to be about whether or not the State Attorney General can or may make a decision like this.

And Id like to be clear that I disagree with you on this narrow point.

The Attorney General of North Carolina is an elected office.  If he has broken the law, no doubt the Feds will step in.  If he has broken the faith of the people who elected him, they will surely deny him office at the next election (although I think its a good bet that he will go on to become the new Governor of the state)  Given that the legislature already has in place the remedy of hiring independent and private Counsel in many and sundry cases within the state, there is already a mechanism for remedy and a clear history of the Attorney General not representing the Legislature in each and every case which requires legal services or defense.

Based on these reasons, I think your point is moot.  It is legally permissible for the Attorney General to decide what his office will defend or not defend.

That said, there is no need to conflate whether I think he can --strictly speaking within the confines of his State Constitional role,--- he should.

This is a separate question in my mind, and I will be glad to debate it with you.

Let me preface it with a few questions.

Do you believe that Kim Davis should have been arrested and forced to comply with the Supreme Courts Ruling on gay marriage, even though technically the State of Kentucky had not yet amended its own laws to reflect the Constitutional ruling?

She was, after all, a duly elected officer of the State (like the NC AG) and had no clearcut State Law directing her to reverse policy.

Do you think that the Supreme Court of Kentucky shared her views, despite not having already ruled on State Law in the matter?  Do you believe that SCOTUS agreed with her reasoning?

When Congress passed Obamacare, and the President signed it into law, were the Republican Governors, including Pam Biondi's boss, Rick Scott. within their rights refusing to implement the new law? You may remember that they wanted Constitutional clarification (specifically from your buddy Scalia) before rolling out the Federal Law.

I looked up NC's constitutional laws. The Governor's office must execute the laws. The Attorney General's duties are all statutorily provided. Even if there is some ambiguity this time around, if he were to really not perform his duties, they can revise his job description to make it crystal clear.

§ 114-2. Duties.
It shall be the duty of the Attorney General:
(1) To defend all actions in the appellate division in which the State shall be
interested, or a party, and to appear for the State in any other court or tribunal
in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the State may be a party or
interested.
(2) To represent all State departments, agencies, institutions, commissions,
bureaus or other organized activities of the State which receive support in
whole or in part from the State. Where the Attorney General represents a State
department, agency, institution, commission, bureau, or other organized
activity of the State which receives support in whole or in part from the State,
the Attorney General shall act in conformance with Rule 1.2 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct of the North Carolina State Bar.


As for Kim Davis, she should have done her job or resigned. If Kentucky lawmakers wanted to create some religious accommodations allowing for someone else to provide marriage licenses in issues of conscience then that could be permissible under the law. One way or another, gay couples should have received their marriage licenses.

The interesting issue with Obamacare was they screwed up the wording within the ACA that gave the states the power to set up the exchanges. Even Obama's people were calling the wording very poor. It went all the way to the Supreme Court. Everything that was not within the power provided to the states should have been implemented. The whole program really could not be implemented though until the mandate issue (federal purview) and exchanges issue (whether the Feds could set up exchanges if states did not) were decided in SCOTUS.