South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem was with Tucker Carlson tonight to defend her refusal to sign the transgender sports bill as it is and she wasn’t happy with the way he characterized what happened . At least twice in the interview, she accused Tucker of being wrong.
In Tucker’s first question to Noem, he notes that the NCAA, Chamber of Commerce, and Amazon told her not to sign the bill, so she changed her mind.
Noem replied, “That’s not true, Tucker,” stating that this bill would allow the NCAA to harass South Dakota and prevent women from participating in college sports.
Tucker cut him off and asked how signing the bill would prevent women from playing in South Dakota, and Noem replied:
Because it would put a law on the books that would allow the NCAA to take punitive action against our state. And we’re a small state of Tucker, we had to fight hard to bring tournaments to South Dakota. If they took punitive action against us, we would have litigation, and legal scholars that I have consulted with for many, many months have said that I was very likely to lose those litigation.
Tucker cut him off again, “So you’re saying the NCAA threatened you and you don’t think you can win this fight. You said if you sign this then girls are banned from playing in South Dakota and you don’t think you can win in court despite the overwhelming public support you are nationally and you giving in to the NCAA. I think that’s what you say. “
Noem didn’t like the last part about “Speleology” and said:
No, that’s not true at all, Tucker. In fact, you are completely wrong. I’ve been working on this topic for years. In fact, a few years ago I fought the USDA to make sure the 4H Rodeo could capture the events of girls, girls and boys, and boys and boys. I’ve been working on this for many, many years. And since November I’ve been consulting with lawyers and professors across the country and asking them how I protect women’s sport. And they went through the steps of how I would legally challenge the NCAA and stop them from harassing the state of South Dakota and they told me to form a coalition. So today you are defending TitleIXNow.com. This allows us to form a coalition of states that can fight the NCAA. Look, I’m tired of the NCAA threatening, challenging, and harassing us. And so we will form a coalition of leaders, athletes and people who want to protect women’s sports and want to make sure our women keep Title IX to protect their right to be competitive and to be rewarded by participating in these team sports. And make sure this coalition can fight the NCAA to make sure we protect Title IX.
Boy, that was a mouthful. In essence, she doesn’t want South Dakota to fight the NCAA alone in court, but instead wants a coalition of states to join forces to make it difficult for the NCAA to fight those states.
But Tucker wants to know why she doesn’t just call the NCAA the bluff when she bans her from the sport: why not say instead, “Bring it to the NCAA, I’m a national figure.” Go ahead and try to shut us out. I will fight you in the court of public opinion and defend the principle. ‘Why not just do that?
Noem claimed that is exactly what she was doing with her coalition, but Tucker cut her off and said she had vetoed the bill and Noem replied:
I did not veto the bill. I made a style and form revision and asked lawmakers to change it so I can win. I am not interested in participating in a trophy. I’m not interested in choosing a fight that we can’t win. I’m a problem solver … I was bullied by the Liberal Tucker last year. I’m not going to let anyone from the NCAA, from any big corporation – I’m not even going to let right-wing bullying be me. I will solve the problem. I will make sure we build strength in numbers. We follow the NCAA and make sure that only girls play in the girls’ sport. I’ve been doing this for years and I’m going to solve the problem, not just choose a fight to choose a fight.
Tucker continued to challenge them on the current bill, a bill that was created through the democratic process because its citizens wanted it, and Noem said that bill was a “litigator’s dream,” suggesting the bill could be a child would not allow a team to sue the team and school for up to a year after the decision to make sure they have the opportunity to play.
She also reiterated that if the law keeps the college stake in the bill, the state will be challenged by the NCAA and they have to fight in a judicial district that is not for-profit.
That’s pretty much the entire interview. What do you think? Are you buying what Noem is selling here through the coalition?