DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Monday, May 09, 2016

North Carolina Sues Obama Regime Over Its Order To Rescind "No Perverts In The Bathroom" Law

by JASmius

The good news?  Governor Pat McCrory and Tar Heel State Republicans didn't fold and withdraw their NPITB statute, as they easily could have and as one of their counterparts in other State recently and equivalently did.  They called the Obama Regime's imperious diktat the vast overreach, power play, and abuse of that power that it is and opted to defiantly stand their ground instead.  Good for them.

The bad news?  North Carolina preemptively sued the Obama Regime to injunct their imperious diktat instead of simply nullifying it with its Original Authority, and there are other drawbacks to that strategy as well.  But 213 years after Marbury v. Madison, and generations away from the abolition of unconstitutional Judicial Review, what other tack did you think they were going to take?:

North Carolina has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. [Inj]ustice[, Revenge & Coverup Commissaria]t to defend House Bill 2, a law that bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond with their [actual] sex, according to a court document.

The move is in response to a letter the [Inj]ustice[, Revenge & Coverup Commissaria]t sent last week warning Governor Pat McCrory that the law is in violation of the Civil Rights Act and giving him until Monday to “remedy the situation.”

The State’s lawsuit calls the [Inj]ustice[, Revenge & Coverup Commissaria]t’s position a “radical reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act” and “a baseless and blatant overreach.”

Which, of course, it is.

The suit has the virtue of making the Regime's threat the object of litigation rather than NPITB, so the former is what would be stayed, not the latter.  But nothing would or will prevent DOJ from counter-suing anyway, or North Carolina's suit from being summarily dismissed, putting NPITB back on the guillotine.  And the inevitable appeals will go to the Fourth Circuit, with its 11.5-7.5 Democrat(-appointed) majority, giving the Regime the upper hand, since even if the SCOTUS deadlocked on the case (doubtful given Justice Kennedy's loopiness in this jurisprudential area), that would simply affirm the Fourth Circuit's ruling against North Carolina.

"No Perverts In The Bathroom", in other words, is pretty much doomed, unless and until the Tar Heel State plainly and simply nullifies DOJ's attempt to dictate State law and dares the White House to send federal troops to forcibly escort gender impersonators into public bathrooms and lockerrooms like President Eisenhower did African-American schoolchildren sixty years ago.

I'd love to see that PR optic, wouldn't you?

But they won't do that; they'll simply cut off North Carolina from all federal funding.  Which is, of course, the ultimate purpose of that federal funding, and always has been: the vassalization of the States into gelded, irrelevant provinces.  Which is why Governor McCrory will eventually cave, assuming he's still in office to throw the white flag....

Polling Data

PollDateSampleMoECooper (D)McCrory (R)Spread
RCP Average2/15 - 4/25----45.041.0Cooper +4.0
Civitas (R)*4/23 - 4/25600 LV4.04839Cooper +9
PPP (D)*4/22 - 4/24960 RV3.24342Cooper +1
WRAL-TV/SurveyUSA*4/8 - 4/11701 LV3.84743Cooper +4
Elon University2/15 - 2/171530 LV2.54240Cooper +2

....not because he'll want to, but because he will see no other option.

Here's the worse news, by the way: A substantial majority of Americans are just fine with perverts in public restrooms:

Americans broadly oppose laws that would require [gender-benders] to use facilities that correspond with their [actual] gender....according to a new CNN/ORC poll, and three-quarters favor laws guaranteeing equal protection for [gender impersonators].

Overall, 57% say they oppose laws requiring [gender impersonators] to use facilities that do not match their [mental illness], 38% support such laws. Strong opposition (39%) outweighs strong support for these laws (25%). There’s a partisan gap on the question, with Democrats and independents more apt to oppose them than Republicans. [emphasis added]

You know what they say, ladies and gentlement: "Politics is downstream from culture".  And if the culture is one big non-stop Bacchanalia, don't be surprised when politics becomes that as well - or that those of us in opposition will be rendered unable to resist it.

UPDATE: Looks like Governor McCrory beat the White House to the punch by literally a matter of minutes:

The U.S. [Inj]ustice[, Revenge & Coverup Commissaria]t said it is suing North Carolina over its law regulating the bathroom choices of [gender impersonators], calling it a violation of the federal Civil Rights Act.

The State’s governor and legislature “created State-sponsored discrimination against [gender impersonator]s who simply seek to engage in the most private of functions” in safety, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Monday at a news conference in Washington. The lawsuit calls for "a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent further violations of federal law."

How is requiring a male gender-bender to take a whiz in the men's room unsafe?  Or vice versa?  What about the safety and sensibilities of the women and children who will have their bathroom privacy eviscerated by rouged, lipsticked, mutilated freaks?  To say nothing of the camouflaged they'll provide for sexual predators and pedophiles?

As I have been arguing for decades, this is not about equal rights, it is about special rights for the Left's favored demographics and extinguishing the rights of the demographics they hate.  Pure, undiluted, 100% tribalism - and tyranny.

Remember the constitutional concept of unalienable "natural" rights?  Why are natural rights unalienable?  Because they are God-given.  The Constitution recognizes them as such, and enumerates to the federal government the authority to safeguard what already exists.  It does NOT empower the federal government itself to invent "civil rights," because what the feds giveth, the feds can taketh away.  Two sides of the same coin, as special rights infringe upon natural rights by definition.  That is what they are designed to do.  Natural rights are about God-given freedom; special rights are about empowering some groups to oppress others.

This is the context in which Reischfuhrer Loretta Lynch tried to draw a heinous faux moral parallel between gender-bender insanity and the genuine civil rights movement for black Americans of the mid-twentieth century, the latter of which did have its constitutional problems (which is why Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964), but was at least grounded in the logic of the immutability of ethnicity and its irrelevance to the humanity and worth of all Americans, and did not infringe upon the natural rights or safety of everybody else.  But homosexual rights?  "Don't ask, don't tell" is fine, whether in the military or in civilian life - if you don't flaunt it in my face, I'm cool, and would prefer not to know, actually, with the exception of certain occupations like teaching and child care - but it didn't stop there, did it?  They had to assault and tear down marriage (or what was left of it after the "Sexual Revolution", anyway), and you can ask Christian photographers and bakers how harmless that has been to their First Amendment freedom of religion rights.  Now it's in our faces constantly; we can't get away from it; and we are required to participate in it.  Even when engaging in "the most private of functions".

This is why I say that I want to see Obama forced to deploy federal troops to forcibly escort gender impersonators into the wrong bathrooms.  That visual needs to be seen, because that is the visceral reality of what he's doing to this country, in this case, at the behest of 1/3,333rd of the population.

No comments: