The emails that the governor’s office released to the Charlotte Observer this week show, once again, Pat McCrory’s lack of political skills. While McCrory has been vigorous in his defense of House Bill 2, despite its negative effect on his re-election, emails show that he opposed the bill and fought against it before it was passed. Had he stood on principle instead of politics, he could have looked like the leader he wants people to believe him to be. Instead, he looks like a man in over his head.
McCrory has missed opportunities to define himself as a moderate, pragmatic governor since he first took office. McCrory arrived in Raleigh fully expecting to expand Medicaid and set up health insurance exchanges as part of the Affordable Care Act. Instead, he was rolled by the leaders of the General Assembly before he could even get his sea legs. Since then, he’s been defending the decision to reject millions in federal dollars and help thousands of more people get access to health care.
When the legislature passed restrictive abortion laws, McCrory signed them and defended them despite having pledged not to do so in his 2012 campaign. He could have vetoed the legislation but instead vetoed two bills that nobody cared much about. The legislature overrode his veto anyway. If he really needed to make a stand, he should have made it about something he promised and something that mattered more politically. Instead, he looked both weak and dishonest.
Now, it appears that McCrory picked politics over principle with his handling of HB2 and once again made the wrong decision. Losing a battle with members of your own party is not necessarily damaging when the people you are battling are taking the state in the wrong direction. McCrory could have defined himself as a moderate, pragmatic governor willing to reach across party lines to defend the state against extremism. Instead, he’s let himself be been defined by a legislature that he often opposes in private but defends in public.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
Hey, D.g., unlike you, I don’t claim to be a legal expert or even a prophet, but it sure looks like I was right about this one. You asserted that “the only ruling under consideration is that of the Texas case.” The Supreme Court just agreed to accept the school district’s appeal in the Virginia transgender case. And it will rule on the Administration’s interpretation of Title IX. In other words, it won’t be limited to procedural issues.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/28/supreme-court-to-rule-in-virginia-transgender-case.html#
Here’s some bad news for you regarding the U.S. Senate. Today Real Clear Politics poll monitor shows the GOP holding the Senate 52-48. That’s as of today and things can quickly change, but a Democrat takeover is no sure thing.
There IS another transgender case before the Supreme Court. The Virginia case, where the Court has issued a temporary stay of the 4th Circuit’s ruling. There’s a sure four votes to accept the school district’s appeal. And this will involve the substance of the Administration’s transgender”guidance,” not just procedural issues.
If SCOTUS takes a case and deadlocks four-four, no precedent is set. Lawsuits are being heard in several Circuit Courts’ jurisdiction, including the conservative dominated 5th Circuit. There is a real possibility of conflicting rulings and SCOTUS split four-four.
BTW D.g, you may think you’re a “big dog”, but who would believe it from the way you wine and yelp.
It just happened last summer, D.g. The Fifth’s Circuit’s ruling on the Administration’s attempt to rewrite national immigration policy was upheld by a divided Supreme Court.
Lawsuits against the transgender bathroom guidance have been filed by 24 states and by private parties in several Circuits. SCOTUS will ultimately decide its fate. You better hope Breyer returns to the liberal fold, and even if he does, it could be a 4-4 ruling which would not set a precedent and there could well be conflicting rulings from different Circuits.
And the Virginia case is about much more than procedural issues. SCOTUS is being asked to rule on the Administration’s re interpretation of Title IX.
While you are no doubt right about Hillary being the next President, control of the Senate is still a 50/50 proposition while the Dems chances of taking control of the House are about 100 to one. And Hillary will need 60 votes in the Senate to get a far left Justice confirmed.
You can try to spin it all you want, but the fact remains that the judge issued a nationwide injunction against the the Administration’s transgender bathroom rule. This, coupled with the Supreme Court’s 5 to 3 stay of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in the Virginia transgender bathroom case, portends that the federal courts will rule that the Administration has both overstepped its legal authority and misinterpreted the meaning and intent of Title IX.
The ultimate result in this case may be similar to the Courts’ ruling on the Administration’s attempt to rewrite national immigration law. When SCOTUS split 4 to 4, the Texas court’s ruling prevailed.
What spin Clarence Darrow? That was from the case itself written by the issuing judge.
And the fact remains that the good Judge’s decision has been appealed to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans. A Federal District Judge making law for the entire nation. Yeah, that one is going to stand.
Oh, the Fifth Circuit? Wasn’t that the federal Court that upheld the Texas Judge’s ruling striking down the Administration’s rules regarding illegal immigrants in the U.S.? You think we be in store for another “deja vu” legal stand off?
Latest federal court ruling on transgender bathroom access:
Federal Judge Reed O’Connor has slapped down the Obama administration’s request to limit the hold on the Department of Education’s order to let students of both sexes use any locker room, shower, or restroom they want. At the end of the summer, the president’s edict was put on hold by the courts. Frustrated, the administration’s attorneys asked the court to lift the ban on implementing the policy in every state except 13 who are suing the government over it. Tuesday, O’Connor refused.
“It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this Court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy. A nationwide injunction is necessary because the alleged violation extends nationwide,” he wrote. “Should the Court only limit the injunction to the plaintiff states who are a party to this cause of action, the Court risks a ‘substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.”
Seems our Governor may have his position validated by the federal courts. SCOTUS has already stayed the Virginia school ruling on transgender bathroom access. Now, there is a nationwide injunction against the Obama Administration’s radical interpretation of Title X
You wanna try again?
“…In the Texas case, the judge said his ruling was based on the administration failing to follow rule-making procedures and not underlying issues of students’ rights.
“This case presents the difficult issue of balancing the protection of students’ rights and that of personal privacy when using school bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and other intimate facilities, while ensuring that no student is unnecessarily marginalized while attending school,” O’Connor said. “The resolution of this difficult policy issue is not, however, the subject of this order.””
Not at all; glad to help sir.
Pat McCrory: he was against HB2 before he was for it!
I do think you should add signing the voter suppression law to his political headstone.
My thoughts exactly. The boy just wasn’t ready for “prime time”. He is the Peter principle personified