Feds defy order to provide same-sex benefits

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The Obama administration refused Friday to follow a federal judge's order to provide insurance benefits to the wife of a lesbian court employee in San Francisco and said its hands were tied by a discriminatory law.

"This issue shows exactly why Congress needs to repeal" the law, which prohibits federal benefits to same-sex couples, government lawyer Elaine Kaplan said in a message to attorneys for court employee Karen Golinski.

One of Golinski's lawyers, Jenny Pizer of the gay-rights group Lambda Legal, said Kaplan's response was "something we might have expected from the Bush or Reagan administration, and not from a 'fierce advocate' of LBGT rights," as President Obama has described himself.

The case is one of two in which the Office of Personnel Management has balked at orders by judges on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to provide coverage to the same-sex spouses of federal employees.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/18/MNSN1B6ISS.DTL&tsp=1

[Mike Nelson]

1. Sad...

These people will join others in staying home on election day... maybe Obama will throw progressives a bone?

[saigon68]

22. Looks like more "Change WE can Believe In"

Why isn't the official who defies the court's order hauled in front of the Court and "jailed" for contempt. With the purge condition to follow the Judge's order. This works effectively in Child Support and other cases !!

As to the enforcement--- Hey thanks Holder, you wimp.

[Mugweed]

34. More of business as usual.

As soon as Rove and Meyers are hauled in, right? I knew all along that Obama was one thing...a politician. As such, I expected we weren't really getting anything new except the skin color.

[pattmarty]

24. Yeah. "here doggie, bend over and I'm gonna give you a bone"........

............Is that what you meant?:sarcasm:

[saigon68]

139. Old Mother Hubbard

Went to the cupboard,

to get her poor dog a bone.

When she bent over

Rover cam over,

and slipped her a bone of his own.

[No Elephants]

65. I'd write in someone before I'd stay home on Election Day. I would use my vote to send a clear

message, not throw it away.

[Q3JR4]

90. I don't know about the rest of the GLBT community

but I was thinking of staying home anyway.

I'll probably vote in the local elections but the nationals can stuff it.

Q3JR4.

[No Elephants]

162. Wouldn't you rather write in the name of an unequivocal supporter of gay rights?

That way, you do make your voice heard, you do exercise your blood bought voting privilege, and no one can mistake your true intention.

If you stay home, the media can spin that anyone it wants, including that Obama was too far left, which is the way Republicans and the media have been trying to spin slipping poll numbers for both Obama and the health care bill. (Most of them ignored dissatisfaction from the left as to both Obama and the bill as long as they could--many still ignore it.

I would not let anyone use me that way, nor would I give up my right to have my say via my vote. Just sayin'.

[Politicub]

2. Fuck this - I'm so tired of this shit. Hiding behind some legal fig leaf.

Rights delayed are rights denied.

And before someone comes to this thread clucking about the legal necessities to do this, I submit that it wasn't moral to support segregation though it was legally enshrined. Pres. Obama should come out forcefully against this injustice and work to stop it. But I won't hold my breath.

[BlueCaliDem]

49. Fig leaf??? DOMA is not a legal

From the Advocate:

"All federal employees — be they in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branch — receive their heath care benefits in the FEHBP, which is administered by OPM. Spouses and minor children of federal employees are eligible to be enrolled in the FEHBP.

However, in 1996, the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” was signed into law and it states that the word “spouse,” when used in a federal statute, can mean only opposite-sex spouses. In other words, the current federal law means that same-sex spouses are ineligible to be enrolled in federal benefit programs that define eligibility based on their status as spouses.

As the President has explained, the Administration believes that this law is discriminatory and needs to be repealed by Congress — that is why President Obama has stated that he opposes DOMA and supports its legislative repeal. He also has said he supports the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO), which would allow all same-sex domestic partners of federal employees to receive federal benefits, including enrollment in the FEHB Plan."

Who signed DOMA into law again? Ahhh yes, Pres. Clinton. Who did the Gay community vote overwhelming for in the 2008 Democratic Primaries again? Ahh yes, Hilary Clinton.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/12/18/Federal_Agency_Denies_Spousal_Benefits_Claim/

[ruggerson]

54. This was an order from a FEDERAL JUDGE

who, in his ruling, described how ONLY the Judiciary shall have the right to interpet Federal law in regards to federal employees.

The administration, in a direct assault on the separation of powers, has decided to ignore a Federal judge's ruling.

In addition, there is an identical case where another Fed district judge ruled for the plaintiff, and in so doing, ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional. The administration, to this date, is defying his order as well.

We didn't like Bush, in part, because he used the Exec branch to usurp the authority of the other two branches.

In this case, a Federal judge has ruled this the province solely of the judiciary and the Obama admin has decided to try to usurp that authority.

[BlueCaliDem]

99. Urrrgh! Did you even READ the article??

Excerpt from The Advocate:

"It’s important to understand that Judge Kozinski was acting as an administrative official in this matter, reacting to the concerns of an employee of the judiciary,” reads OPM’s statement official statement. “He was not acting as a federal judge in a court case."

Based on that distinction, DOJ concluded that Kozinski’s order was not legally binding. If it were legally binding, OPM would have been faced with either appealing the decision or complying with the order.

Since the procedure was not an official legal proceeding, the OPM official said the agency was bound by the Defense of Marriage Act, which precludes coverage of Golinski’s spouse."

Yeah, keep shoving the blame at Obama. Keep attacking him for the most dumbest things you'd have to really dig DEEP in order to present as a halfway decent attack of our Democratic President, and while you're add it, hopefully you'll recall what happened when that happened the last time. EIGHT YEARS OF BUSH AND TWELVE YEARS OF A REPUB CONGRESS.

And here I thought only the righties were rabid.

[ruggerson]

103. You're accepting the DOJ argument prima facie

They could just as easily OBEY the two orders, if this was an administration that wished to weaken DOMA and eventually overturn it. There is plenty of legal ground for them to accept Kozinski's separation of powers argument and comply. They would be well within the rule of law, and it would be consistent with Obama's professed beliefs in the separation of powers and his supposed animus towards DOMA. Instead they came back to him, using DOMA as their shield!

In the similar case, the Judge flat out ruled the applicable section of DOMA unconstitutional. An administration friendly to gay rights would have WELCOMED that decision and complied. Instead they are in defiance of that order as well.

From the Chronicle:

One of Golinski's lawyers, Jenny Pizer of the gay-rights group Lambda Legal, said Kaplan's response was "something we might have expected from the Bush or Reagan administration, and not from a 'fierce advocate' of LBGT rights," as President Obama has described himself.

[BlueCaliDem]

118. Then the LGBT Community should take this to court and fight it out

You do understand that the Department of Justice is independent of the WH, don't you?

The Clinton persecution by Starr should leave everyone with NO doubt this is the case.

[donco6]

134. Always back to "fighting it out".

You do remember we're a teeny tiny minority, right? And yet we're always the ones being told to "fight it out." We elected Obama so we wouldn't HAVE to "fight it out." Why should we be fighting anything out right now? It's patently absurd!

[ruggerson]

138. The DOJ is only independent of the WH when they need it to be

By way of illustration:

The original Smelt brief that created a nationwide uproar six months ago had multiple ramifications.

Steve Hildebrand met directly with the President and told him what a huge mistake it was and how it had deeply angered a core constituency.

As a result, the DOJ had a quiet meeting with members of Lambda Legal and other gay legal powerhouses.

The result of all this coordination was a REVISED brief that was issued in CONJUNCTION with a statement from Obama himself.

Let me repeat that for you: The revised Smelt brief was issued from the DOJ along with a statement from Obama explaining the revised language.


"Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law."


IOW, the DOJ coordinated with the WH after receiving the word to tone down the original brief.

The DOJ is putatively an independent arm, but the President uses it as a political tool when he needs to, as ALL his predecessors have done.

As far as this case goes, Kozinski's ruling was based on a separation of powers argument. If the Obama administration was looking for legal, legitimate ways to weaken DOMA, until it is eventually repealed, they could have complied with the Judge's order and been on solid legal ground. Instead, they used DOMA itself as the excuse not to comply!

As for your retort that the GLBT community should fight this out in court, that's exactly what all these cases are about. There are three cases right now wending their way up the federal judiciary directly challenging DOMA. One is being spearheaded by David Boies and Ted Olsen.

But the Obama administration owes us some help along the way. They could have easily complied with this administrative ruling, under the separation of powers, and eased this couple's burden and tangentially weakened DOMA.

Instead they responded like the Bush and Reagan administrations did before them.

[BlueCaliDem]

142. D. Boies and Bush Att. Olsen. I wish you luck

We'd seen what happened the last time with Bush v Gore although they were opposite of each other then.

I do hope they succeed. The Clinton-signed DOMA and DADT MUST be abolished. This is to me, a civil rights issue and a serious violation of it.

Apparently you're an attorney and you're trying to litigate with me. Either you're trying to intimidate (not working) or you're trying to flex your litigating muscle (for whatever future reason), it still comes down to this: DOMA is LAW.

Get it abolished in court and stop acting so angry all the time. it's being worked on as we speak.

A little advice? You won't win any supporters not affected by this non-compliance with your angry tirades, but I can guarantee you'll make new foes.

[ruggerson]

143. I'm not trying to "litigate with you"

(whatever you may mean by that). I responded factually and pointed out to you that you were mistaken in making a broadbush statement about the independence of the DOJ. Neither am I "angry" with you about anything - you're just another person making random statemetns on the internet. I, and many others, get rightfully angry at times with an administration that says one thing and does another. As has been reiterated many times on this thread: the Obama administration was on very solid legal ground had they COMPLIED with the order. Instead they brought DOMA into play and used that as their rationalization to discriminate.

If you characterize people standing up for equality as citizens engaged in "angry tirades," then I humbly suggest you examine your motivations for defending the administration on this and commenting in this thread at all.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

145. No, D of J is not "independent." That is a silly myth that DU seems to love.

The D of J is part of the Executive Branch. As such the D of J is answerable to its boss, the POTUS, as is everyone else in the Executive Branch.

The POTUS has has the power to hire and fire anyone and everyone in the Executive Branch, including any and all D of J employees (except the few that have civil service positions are entitled to a hearing first).

When you perform your job, are you"independent" of your employer, or are you always subject to the direction of your employer and failing that, subject to being fired? Please don't claim that the person who has the power to hire or fire you, especially in a recession like this one, has nothing to say about how you perform your job.

As far as Kent Starr, you have your facts wrong. Starr investigated the Clintons as an independent counsel, not as a member of the D of J.

When Bill Clinton took office, he fired everyone in the D of J and hired Democrats, which is a practice most Presidents have followed for decades.

Kent Starr, however, was a Republican. Janet Reno appointed him precisely because she and all Clinton employees were NOT independent of their employer. At the time of his appointment, Starr worked for a private law firm, Kirkland Ellis. In fact, during his tenure as independent counsel, he continued to work part time for Kirkland Ellis..

[donco6]

60. That's just the OPM's interpretation of the ruling.

The judge obviously believed he was acting in the capacity of a judge - he handed down a ruling. This is just Obama admin legal bullshit where he's working overtime to kick gays in the teeth yet again.

[BlueCaliDem]

121. Openly gay John Berry is HEAD of the OPM and yet it's Obama's fault??? eom

[donco6]

128. Believe it or not, shills come in all flavors, including gay.

Because a gay guy supports it we all must go along? Fuck That

[BlueCaliDem]

130. Hey! The LGBT Community sure was happy when Pres. Obama appointed him

The LGBT community is happy with Obama’s choice.

“The selection of John Berry to head the Office of Personnel Management, making him the highest-ranking openly gay official ever, is a meaningful step forward for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “In his new role, John will make critical decisions regarding the implementation of fair workplace policies for millions of federal workers. We congratulate him on his remarkable achievements and look forward to his continued leadership for the LGBT community and the nation as a whole.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/obama-to-appoin.html

I think you're going to need a bigger bus. There are just too many of them being thrown under it these days that it's getting crowded.

I'm sure, however, that the Repubs will be happy.

[donco6]

133. We were mostly happy when Obama was elected, too.

Well, until the bus really got revved up. And yes, it is getting a bit crowded under here. What with teachers, women, peace activists, anti-strip mining folks, etc.

And besides, quoting Joe Solmonese around gay folk is highly unadvisable. The guy is a sell-out who would make Obama blush.

[BlueCaliDem]

141. That was *never* the impression I got here or any place else

and I was shocked to read, SHOCKED to read, that the majority of gays supported, and voted for, Hilary Clinton in the primaries, and by overwhelming margins.

After her husband signed DOMA and DADT into law, I'd think they'd be p*ssed, but it appears they've projected that being upset on Obama - and they're still at it.

I wonder why?

ALL our gay friends loathed Obama and said they were firmly behind Hillary. ALL of them. I should've known it was a country wide event, but I still don't know why.

I understand why the Latinos weren't in support of Obama (it's a cultural thing), but I couldn't understand why the gay community didn't.

[No Elephants]

151. Then your reading comprehension is off, too. Which may explain why you misstate facts. I thought

it was just that you posted with indifference to whether your statements were accurate or not, as long as their supported your otherwise non-existent position. But, I guess it could be lack of reading comprehension, though indifference to accuraccy seems more consistent with the m.o.

[No Elephants]

148. No, nothing is the fault of the POTUS. That's why we elect them--to be accountable for zero.

Another sign that you are not reality based--imagining that neither the OPM nor Holder consulted with the WH on this political hot potato.

You are really embarrassing yourself and, by extension, Obama.

Obama is lucky that sane posters do not hold against him or change their votes based upon what his alleged fans at DU post, 'cause y'all act like he is a somewhat slow three years old--at least when the news isn't positive. When it is positive, there's only kvelling about Obama, no matter who is the administration was in charge.

Very convenient not to hold Obama accountable for anything at all we read in the corporate media, too. And heaven knows the non-corporate media, like fire dog, are unreliable too. Since it's been ages since Michele called me to fill me in, I guess I will never know what Obama is up to. Not, of course, that Michele is exactly objective, either.

[Politicub]

62. The justice department could allocate its resources elsewhere

and prioritize cases that don't penalize someone for being LGBT. Again, it is immoral for DOMA law to be defended by ANYBODY.

Do you forget that Eric Holder stated that enforcing federal marijuana laws wouldn't be a priority. The justice department has the ability to prioritize.

There are enough enemies of us homos without all of the cheerleading from DU about "enforcing the law." Bullshit.

[Politicub]

63. Oh, if I may add - FUCK PRESIDENT CLINTON for signing DOMA in to law

It ranks up there as one of the more odious pieces of legislation coming from that era.

Clinton did some good, but he did tremendous damage to our country as well by not vetoing legislation like NAFTA and welfare "reform."

And, I don't even know why you brought Clinton up. He's not president. I'm sick of these circular arguments and hand wringing about how it would just be horrible if Pres. Obama spoke out against how immoral that the justice dept. defends this bigoted law against gays. "Oh deary me... he would be just like BUSH." please.

He has the bully pulpit. He should use it loudly when it comes to civil rights.

[MNBrewer]

79. and fuck Paul Wellstone for voting for it

I'll never forgive him for that vote.

[Politicub]

87. Yep - and every other congress person who cast their vote for inequality

But may Sen. Wellstone RIP.

[BlueCaliDem]

114. I can't believe it. Wellstone was a Liberal. Liberals would never

vote for a bill as unconstitutional and unfair as DOMA, right? Right? :sarcasm:

I am so sick and tired of Dems voting against equal rights for all Americans, but the LGBT community whining and yelling that the candidate they fought hard to defeat in favor of the wife of the President who signed that G.D. bill into law is just as nauseating.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blue_onyx]

100. You do realize that Bill Clinton...

and Hillary Clinton are two different people, right?

[BlueCaliDem]

111. No chit, really? Well ah-bee :slapping knee; eom

[blue_onyx]

113. Well...

then you shouldn't be placing any blame for the passage of DOMA on Hillary.

[BlueCaliDem]

117. I'll do that

when people stop placing blame on President Obama for what the Department of Justice decides. Equal disconnect, don't you agree?

[blue_onyx]

124. No, it's completely different

As the beginning of the article said, "The Obama administration." It's his administration and he is responsible for its decisions.

[BlueCaliDem]

125. You go by what article heading say and accept it as gospel??

What part of corporate media not being for any Democratic President don't you get?

Did you miss how they came out and declared the moment President Obama was inaugurated that they'll be "asking the hard questions"? You know, the ones they "forgot" to ask during the Dubya years?

Or how about the fact that they've purposely twisted VP Al Gore's words making it sound as if he said he invented the Internet when he actually said he had gotten the funding to create the Internet as we have today? AP and the so-called liberal NYT, no less, ran with this distortion until every paper, every "news" media, blew it completely out of proportion.

What part of the Department of Justice being independent of the WH don't you understand?

Or have you forgotten the Lewinsky fiasco. You DO remember that it was the DOJ that assigned the case to Kenneth Starr and began the persecution of President Clinton, right?

[No Elephants]

146. Um, independent counsel gets appointed precisely because the D of J is NOT independent.

And Janet Remo had no power to "assign" Kent Starr anything. He was not her employee. He worked for a private law firm. He was free to accept the appointment or tell her to buzz off. Get your facts straight.

[louis-t]

56. Legal "fig leaf'?

I see, so when bush would ignore the law to pass whatever he wanted, that was bad. But when Obama admin says 'we can't break the law' that's bad, too?

[ruggerson]

57. It's not up to the Obama admin to interpret the law

that is the role of the judiciary. And the judiciary has spoken quite loudly here.

[louis-t]

109. Please read #48 and #88.

They explain better than I could. And please read the entire article again. It is hard to grasp what happened, but there are 2 conflicting laws here.

[ruggerson]

110. I have. They're both incorrect. Read #102

It was still an order from a member of the judiciary. The ruling was based on a separation of powers argument. Please read Post #102

[No Elephants]

66. The Obama administration is violating a court order. Did you miss that part?

The courts have the final say on law.

[BlueCaliDem]

112. Then they should take it to court, yes? eom

[donco6]

135. That's what they DID. That's how they got this RULING.

But I guess, like ClarkUSA, you believe Obama only has to obey court rulings made by the SUPREME court. Everything else is just window-dressing.

[No Elephants]

149. It was appealed, but would that have been your attitude if Bush did the same thing?

[earcandle]

3. Great example he is for NOT honoring our laws!

Why should anyone else? 

We are really going to fall apart when this shit starts to
happen.

Third world, here we come. 
Got room for insurgents and revolution and disasters in our
lives? 
I, for one, need him to honor our laws. 

IMPEACH! 

[Honeycombe8]

48. The agency IS following the federal law. There is a problem with the two laws....

they contradict each other. But the DOMA does prohibit the federal govt from recognizing same sex marriages.

If you read the article, you will see that the "court" order comes not from a regular judge, but from an administrative hearing judge, so it doesn't have the same weight as a regular court order.

It's a problem, when states pass laws that are not recognized by the fed. govt. Like the legalization of pot for medical purposes, which is against fed. law.

The fed. can choose not to prosecute those who go against the fed. law, but it's kinda tricky to choose to recognize those state decisions, when the fed's own jurisdiction prohibits them legally from doing that.

It's a problem. (BTW, it's not Obama who does any of this. It's the DOJ or whatever; unlike Bush, he doesn't dictate to the DOJ what they have to do.)

If the DOMA is repealed, this problem will go away.

[ruggerson]

55. It's a ruling from the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Please do not disseminate falsehoods.

[Vattel]

88. But the judge was not acting in her capacity as a judge.

She was acting as an administrative officer.

[BlueCaliDem]

126. B-B-B=But Obama should just strike it down, dagnabbit! He's

being too soft and he should be more like Bush, a dictator! Oh, and he's an anti-gay President too even when the HEAD of the OPM is an OPENLY gay man, John Berry, but-but-but it's all Obama's fault!:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

150. That is only the administration's argument. And an administrative law judge is also a judge, just

not an Article III judge.

This is a judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals. Do you really think she would have ruled any differently if she were sitting in a different chair? Besides, that begs the question of why the administration chose to defy the order of an administrative law judge, rather than obey it, and whether the administration should have done that. And please don't say the administration has an obligation to defy (or appeal) orders of administrative law judges. It has no such obligation.

[donco6]

59. Obama dictates to DOJ when it's convenient.

And ignores judge's rulings when it pleases him. He's no different than Bush.

[BlueCaliDem]

127. Can I borrow that crystal ball? I'd like to know what this week's

lotto numbers are.

Your post is pure speculation and baseless conjecture, but it does serve to satisfy your apparent loathing of a DEMOCRATIC President, doesn't it?

[donco6]

136. No it isn't - and now who's projecting?

I campaigned and voted for the guy.

And Obama ignored DOJ when not prosecuting Bush et al. It's been demonstrated many times. Really, you must try to keep up.

[BlueCaliDem]

140. Yeah, it is. He can say all he wants

the DOJ doesn't have to listen otherwise we'd never have the prosecution of President Clinton, now would we? You do know that it was President Clinton's DOJ that got this persecution rolling, right?

Thus, you really need to learn more about your government and how it works. It was BUSH'S DOJ that marched in lockstep with the WH, not Clinton's and not Obama's. History is your friend.

I don't care if you've campaigned and voted for the guy. To suddenly drop your support of him less than a year into his Presidency tells me you only voted for him, not because he was the candidate of your choice (and I BET he wasn't), but because you voted against McPalin.

Fickle.

[No Elephants]

152. No, your claim that the D of J is independent of the POTUS is baseless conjecture.

And you seem to equate loathing and disagreement over policy. That says more about you than it says about anyone else--and it doesn't say something good.

[earcandle]

131. Thanks for the explanation.

[quakerboy]

4. How can they do that?

Aren't there consequences for defying court orders?

[No Elephants]

67. You and I might be thrown in jail for being in contempt of court. But, no one

is going to cause a Constitutional crisis over this.

Some people ARE more equal than others.

[Divine Discontent]

5. Did I just f*cking read this? If this is true, just another example of big ol' smooth talkin' and

NO ACTION!

:mad:

[Fearless]

7. A-fucking-men!

[Divine Discontent]

8. livid

:hug: glad there's many of us who are so sick of this continued bullshit.

This WH is a cancer on the Democratic Party at this point - I NEVER thought that would happen - some warned about that in regards to Obama, but who I was most worried about was Rahm, and then I saw all the B*sh holdovers, and then saw the Goldman advisors they brought - we've been hijacked by the banks.... and as for our rights - they must laugh at that.

As I said in an OP a week or two ago - I will NOT vote for Obama in 2012, b/c of, not GLBT issues, but Afghanistan being increased drastically for years - but the GLBT issues certainly add more fuel to my disdain for the horrible Admin.

[aggiesal]

43. Website that follows Obama's Campaign Promises

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

This is a great site.
They recorded every promise Obama made during his campaign (Primary and General elections),
and are now monitoring how Obama is doing with each promise.

As of today, here is his box-score:
The Obameter Scorecard
* Promise Kept 72
* Compromise 18
* Promise Broken 9
* Stalled 35
* In the Works 197
* Not yet rated 182

Enjoy!

[scentopine]

45. Whoo Hooo the puppy is counted as a promise kept!

The main problem with this web site is that it doesn't differentiate on the real promises that matter most.

A repeal or "reform" of an obscure provision of a bill that might only benefit wall street gets counted as a promise kept.

Torture, wire tapping, trillions for wall street, massive escalation of war, on and on - these count 10X some of the stupid shit on that web site that counts as a promise kept.

[aggiesal]

123. Send them an email ...

and call them on it.

It's BS that they should consider a promise as kept, when it really isn't.

[Divine Discontent]

6. oh, and off to the greatest page with thee!, although it's not a great story by any means...

[tritsofme]

9. The administration is required to enforce the law.

Until Congress repeals the law, or it is declared unconstitutional, he must enforce it.

[atreides1]

12. True

But until the community organizer decides to actually become a leader, Congress won't do squat.

The window dressing is falling off and the real man is finally making an appearance. This way if things go to hell he can always put the blame on the Congress.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Really? How come Obama is breaking the law by not prosecuting Bush law breakers?

Obama's DOJ is even protection John Yoo, of torture memo fame!

[tritsofme]

14. What law is the Obama adminstration in violation of?

Granting benefits to the lesbian partner of a federal employee would clearly violate DOMA.

Obama is bound to enforce the law as written. Congress must act to repeal the legislation.

[Mz Pip]

15. Thank you

for pointing this out. Obama does not make the laws. This is the job of Congress. Congress needs to change the law. Obama cannot change the law. That is the responsibility of the legislative branch.

[ruggerson]

40. And it's the responsibility of the JUDICIARY to interpret it

Obama is defying a FEDERAL COURT ORDER.

[freddie mertz]

51. He is just following orders!

[IndianaGreen]

16. Obama took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and he is required

to enforce the laws. By his own admission, Bush violated FISA. Torture is against the law, and John Yoo wrote a memo saying torture was okay. Cheney and Bush both committed war crimes.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Why Is Torture Illegal?

It's an international war crime per treaties we've signed and enforced in the past. It's clear cut.

By its actions, the Obama Administration is saying that John Yoo's safe passage is more important than support of homosexual marriage.

[No Elephants]

70. The Convention Against Torture requires signatory nations to prosecute, too.

[Toasterlad]

28. A JUDGE Is Telling Him That DOMA Is ILLEGAL.

The Judge is telling him that he is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to provide same-sex benefits. If Obama the homophobe wants to fight that ruling, he is free (and happy!) to do so. But he is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to obey the ruling until it is overturned, unless he gets a judge to delay the ruling while it's being appealed...which he hasn't bothered to do. He's just IGNORING THE LAW...just like Bush would.

[still_one]

35. That is what surprises me. Assuming he is aware of this, and I am not making excuses for him

by implying he isn't, but if he is aware of this, it makes no sense

If he isn't aware of it is an even more disturbing prospect, because that means he is not aware what his administration is doing

[ruggerson]

41. He's aware of it

This judge had given them a timeframe to respond. He had ruled on it TWICE. This was all over the news:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=18188

[tritsofme]

84. Is that true?

I haven't followed the issue that closely, but this passage from the OP's article suggests otherwise:

Kaplan told Golinski's attorneys that the Justice Department had reviewed her case and concluded the Defense of Marriage Act prohibited insurance coverage. Kozinski's order is not binding on the agency, Kaplan said, because he was acting as an administrative hearing officer and not as a judge.


It does not seem that the judge ruled on the constitutionality of DOMA, it seems he has essentially issued an administrative order that demands the Obama administration violate federal law.

[ruggerson]

91. There is another almost identical case priior to this

where the Judge did indeed rule against DOMA and found the applicable section unconstitutional.

The Obama administration is in defiance of his order as well.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html

[tritsofme]

98. From your article:

Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.

Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.

So from what I read, DOMA was not declared unconstitutional by this administrative action. The court's administrative ruling instructs the Obama to ignore federal law. This seems to be more of a conflict between separation of powers, than the underlying constitutionality of DOMA, which doesn't seem to be challenged by either of these rulings.

[ruggerson]

101. That refers to other courts hearing other DOMA cases

it does not necessarily apply to how the Administration must respond. In both cases, the DOJ could just as easily have accepted the rulings and complied with both Federal Judges' orders.

They CHOSE not to. As you note, Kozinski's ruling was based on a separation of powers argument, but the administration responded to it citing DOMA.

There is plenty of legal room for a FRIENDLY administration to legally comply with these orders and thereby incrementally strengthen the case against DOMA.

They made the active decision NOT TO DO THAT.

As one of the LAMBDA counsel noted:


"One of Golinski's lawyers, Jenny Pizer of the gay-rights group Lambda Legal, said Kaplan's response was "something we might have expected from the Bush or Reagan administration, and not from a 'fierce advocate' of LBGT rights," as President Obama has described himself.

[still_one]

33. Except his justice department could have argued on the grounds of discrimination

and the case could have eventualy moved up to the Supreme Court to determine if the DOMA was even constitutional

[No Elephants]

78. Don't know that asking the Roberts Court to decide that is the wisest course.

[No Elephants]

69. The Obamadmin is violating a court order. Tthat is contempt of court. The court decides what the

law says, not the Obamadmin.

[placton]

21. wrong

he is obliged to follow this court ruling, not ignore it

[Toasterlad]

27. The Administration Is Required to OBEY the Law

Obama is legally obligated to obey the ruling of the court, even if he continues to fight it, which he is delighted to do. Being president does not place him above the law, although he apparently believes otherwise.

Like so many other issues, there is absolutely NO difference between Obama and Bush on this front.

[Laelth]

38. The Courts interpret the law, not the executive branch.

Once the Court issues a ruling, the executive branch is supposed to enforce it. This is a serious stretch of executive power, and it's a stretch in the wrong direction.

:dem:

-Laelth

[ruggerson]

39. They are unilaterally defying a FEDERAL COURT ORDER

I thought we were supposed to honor the separation of powers.

And why are they not sponsoring legislation to repeal DOMA?

[totodeinhere]

77. That reminds of what the Bush Administration used to do all the time.

I had thought that things were different now, but I guess not.

But be that as it may, Congress needs to repeal DOMA now. I doubt if Obama would have the balls to veto that legislation if it is passed.

[scentopine]

46. LOL! Separation of powers or is Obama is running a police state? -nt

[donco6]

58. And when a judge says what the law is, he's supposed to enforce it.

Instead, he's chosen AGAIN to ignore it. There's no conclusion to arrive at besides Obama is a homophobic asshole.

[No Elephants]

153. Alternative conclusion: Obama wants to win elections.

As they say "Do the math."

How many polled self-identify as Christian versus how many who self-identify as gay? A majority of voters in how many states have defeated gay marriage?

However, if you are on the wrong side of an issue, you are on the wrong side. Doesn't much matter to me if you are putting your own interests above your principles or whether homophobia IS your principle. Hard for me to say which is actually worse.

[No Elephants]

68. The administration is required to obey court orders. Courts are the final arbiters of law.

[Bluebear]

82. Like prosecuting torture, right?

[Dragonfli]

122. with the exception of torture laws, of course /nt

[No Elephants]

161. Not true. And, even if it were true, we are mighty selective about which laws we

enforce, aren't we?

For instance, the 1976 Convention Against Torture {and other abusive conduct}, to which the United States became a Party while Reagan was in office, REQUIRES prosecution of those responsible for torture, yet Obama declared from Day One that there would be no prosecution for Bush, Cheney, et al or anyone following a lawyer's memo, then the D of J took Yoo and Bybee off the hook, even as to a complaint to the Bar in their respective states. Now, it is defending Yoo to boot.

Of course, the memos were written AFTER the torture had already begun and Gonzo promised Bybee a judgeship if Bybee cooperated. And "I vuss only following legal memos" is not a Nuremberg defense or a defense for Lt. Calley, but why quibble when it comes to trifles like violations of international law and war crimes?

Giving marriage benefits to two gay people who are legally married, on the other hands, is sufficiently horrible to warrant defying the orders of two judges.

Oh, wait, that's not true, either. The administration claims to think DADT and DOMA are just terrible.

I guess the lesson here is we fight in court to enforce laws that we don't agree with and disregard the ones for which we have the utmost respect.

No political motivation there whatever, I'm sure.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BolivarianHero]

94. Clinton was worse...

But it's close.

[totodeinhere]

115. If you go back to the 19th century there were some Dem presidents who were pretty bad.

James Buchanan comes to mind.

Obama has been a big disappointment on selling out health care reform, continuing two wars, refusing to stand up for GLBT's, cozying up to Wall Street, and several other things. He has been good on the environment and in improving our standing in the world, and I don't think he is the worst Dem president ever. Not yet at least.

[Metta]

11. O wants clean hands so he can talk out of both sides of his mouth. Doesn't care who gets hurt.

Fig leaf is right.

[LaPera]

17. Fuck Obama's doing this too? Is he just a regressive right leaning moderate certainly no progressive

But we knew he was a moderate before the election....the progressive stuff was just to get the liberals out to vote for him....but I never thought he be leaning so hard to the corporate right though.

[McCamy Taylor]

18. They have the right to follow the orders of the judge. Then his ruling would be law.

His ruling is only unlawful if Obama and Co. decide to appeal it. This "We would be good if only Congress would let us" good government branch/bad government branch is getting old. Very old.

[Ter]

19. Big mistake :(

[24601]

20. Disobeying a court order - can you spell impeachment? n/t

[blackbear79]

29. Who would move to impeach him?

Does anyone think a majority of Congress would vote to impeach the President if he used an Executive order to grant benefits to a same sex partner of a Federal Employee? It would be interesting drama and great cable news.

[still_one]

32. I believe the house would only need a simple majority to bring the articles of impeachment

That probably wouldn't happen. However, using the phrase, that the majority of Congress would not vote to impeach the president, I disagree as far as it comes to the Senate

We really don't have a majority there

[24601]

50. Him who? - the house can impeach anyone in the executive or

judicial branches - including the OPM Chief.

[Vattel]

86. see post 85

[totodeinhere]

116. My Lord. They didn't impeach W and now they are going to impeach O?

I don't think so. It hasn't got nearly that bad yet. I don't condone what the Administration is doing in this case, but they are by no means the first ones to defy a court order and they won't be the last. It's sad but true.

[Freddie Stubbs]

165. This was not a 'court order'

It was an order by a judge acting as an administrator. It issue has yet to be litigated.

[pattmarty]

23. Isn't this the same office (OPM) that is supposed to monitor the insurance............

.................exchange and companies under the (so far) proposed bill?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elocs]

30. During Bushco what did DU have to say about obeying the rule of law?

:shrug:

Or does it only apply to Republicans?

[No Elephants]

73. IOKIODI.

It's O.K. if Obama does it.

[elocs]

83. Ahhhh. n/t

[still_one]

31. Why would they ignore a Federal Judge order? Is Eric Holder involved? I really want to

understand why the administration appears to be doing something so stupid

[jberryhill]

93. Because it can't get to the Supreme Court otherwise /nt

[No Elephants]

147. It's not as though the Roberts Court is going to be gay friendly and Obamadmin knows that

very well.

Besides, you never bet on the outcome of litigation anyway. Ask any litigator. The idea that the D of J does certain things to get favorable rulings from the SCOTUS has no basis in reality, as any lawyer knows.

Did you forget Obama's saying (re: the subject of gay marriage), "God is in the mix" when it comes to marriage? You know, when he was at Rick Warren's church. You remember Rick Warren, the blatantly homophobic preacher Obama chose to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration, perhaps the most important public prayer in America since Washington was inaugurated.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Barack McWarren in action again

God is in the mix!*


* Except in issues related to war, peace, money, justice, theft, torture, false imprisonment or bribery, in which case God is specifically excluded from the mix, under a special accord made under the Bush administration.

[Laelth]

37. You have got to be kidding me. Was Nader right all along? n/t

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[No Elephants]

76. Nader right about what? About the Demlicans and Republicrats being alike?

[Laelth]

80. Smile. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[closeupready]

42. Yet another bad call.

:mad:

[Frank Cannon]

44. This is just another move in his brilliant chess strategy

That none of us are bright enough to figure out.

[fascisthunter]

47. this man disgusts me more everyday

the man's a fraud

[valerief]

52. The more it changes, the more it stays the same. (sigh). nt

[freddie mertz]

53. We just have to face the facts. Obama is not the man we thought (or hoped) he was.

He looks nice and talks great, but he does not have the slightest commitment to social justice.

[Odin2005]

61. Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

[alp227]

64. Wow...this is frickin contempt of court

C'mon, Obama knows better; he was a frickin Professor of Constitutional Law before becoming pres. He can't veto a court decision!

[DonkeyHoTay]

71. cAN'T HE JUST DRAFT AN EXECUTIVE ORDER?

[Bluebear]

81. He could. he doesn't want to.

[No Elephants]

155. An EO could suspend DADT dishcharges. Doubt EO can overrule DOMA. However, he could obey this order

[Freddie Stubbs]

166. No it is not

This is a judge acting as an administrative officer regarding an employee of his court. If he wants to press this issue, he would need to take the administration to court.

[madmx19790]

72. more of the same. lovely

[totodeinhere]

74. This is one more reason why I am deeply disappointed in Obama.

And he can't blame his Justice Department, although they are certainly culpable. The buck stops with Obama.

[JerseygirlCT]

75. Very disappointing. nt

[Vattel]

85. The DOJ attorney (Kaplan) says the court order is not binding

on the DOJ:

"Kaplan told Golinski's attorneys that the Justice Department had reviewed her case and concluded the Defense of Marriage Act prohibited insurance coverage. Kozinski's order is not binding on the agency, Kaplan said, because he was acting as an administrative hearing officer and not as a judge."

So don't jump to the conclusion that the Obama DOJ is placing itself above the law.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/18/MNSN1B6ISS.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0aAL6U1UY

[ruggerson]

97. Federal judiciary staffers are prohibited from suing the Fed gov't

They have to use the administrative proceeding route. And another judge, in a similar case, flatly found the applicable parts of DOMA unconsitutional.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html

The Obama administration is not complying with that order either.

In both of these cases, there is plenty of legal room for the administration to comply, thereby strengthening the fight for marriage equality. They have deliberately chosen not to, and have used DOMA cynically as a shield behind which to continue discriminating against legally married couples.

[No Elephants]

154. Well, if the DofJ says the DofJ is correct, that settles it, doesn't it?

The D of J also found it had no basis to take action against Yoo and Bybee, not even a letter of complaint to their state bar officials who supervise attorneys in their respective states. So, of course, I'd take the D of J's word on anything and everything.

After all, what incentive could a D of J attorney/employee possibly have for supporting the D of J?

You caution others not to leap to conclusions, even as you seem to leap to a conclusion. Please also see Reply 165.

[Politicub]

89. How about showing some empathy for those of us this hurts to the core

instead of rushing to defend the system.

That's another thing I never understand about DU. Instead of people trying to empathize with LGBT folk and calling out DOMA for the horrid legislation that it is, they instead gravitate to defending "the system." As if it needs a chorus of defenders from DU to sustain it. To the people defending the Justice Department's embrace of DOMA and clucking about how that is somehow good, you have nothing to worry about since seems there is no risk in Justice not defending DOMA as vigorously as possible.

It would go a long way if you put yourself in our shoes and feel the pain of being kicked in the gut every time the majority denies or defends the status quo of inequality against a minority.

[BolivarianHero]

95. Too many spineless RATS...

America needs a party of socialism and civil libertarianism.

[No Elephants]

158. Most libertarians I know sound suspiciously like Republicans.

As self described Libertarian Drew Carey puts it, "A Libertarian is a Republican who smokes pot."

[dana_b]

96. not everyone, thank God

there is a wide divide on this board but it seems that many do empathize or at least are trying to put themselves in your shoes.
This defiance is beyond wrong and there is no excuse for it.

[No Elephants]

156. Many DUers do show empathy.

[dana_b]

92. disgusting

it's so hard to believe that they would openly fight against this. When the hell will this country truly believe that all "are created equal"?

BTW - the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court rocks!!

[Goldstein1984]

102. Regardless...

of whether the decision of a federal judge ruling in an administrative hearing is an official ruling about the constitutionality of DOMA, or whether such a decision is binding on the Administrative Branch, or whether a decision in the 9th Circuit sets a precedent that must be following in all circuits, the Obama Administration, if it were looking for every opportunity to be an advocate for the GLBT community, could have used this decision to champion change.

[ruggerson]

104. EXACTLY

And they would have been on solid legal ground to do so.

[Goldstein1984]

105. I think so too

[William769]

106. Merry Fucking Christmas my GLBT brothers & sisters.

Many of you know I hated Obama when hating Obama wasn't cool. Guess what? my feelings haven't changed.

It is so sad to see that the Democratic party has blind loyalists as the Republican party does. Just a bunch of fucking lemmings willing to follow him off a side of very high cliff.

P.S. Peace on earth good will to all bla bla bla and all that good shit.

[Betty Karlson]

107. Obama is a homophobe

and not worthy of calling himself a Christian.

[No Elephants]

163. Please see Reply 153.

Saying that Obama has been on the wrong side of gay rights issues like DADT and gay marriage many timnes is a supportable statement. Saying he is a homophobe requires reading his mind, though. And saying he is not fit to call himself a Christian is a whole 'nother trip.

[Vidar]

108. He's done his best to screw over the poor, women & gays. Who's next?

[totodeinhere]

119. The Obama Administration is playing a very cynicaL game.

They can say they want to repeal DOMA because they know it won't happen. There aren't 60 votes in the Senate to do it. And after the 2010 election it will probably be even worse. The fight for GLBT equality is very far from over.

[boppers]

129. Got a better legal strategy?

We can't just wish laws away.

[totodeinhere]

132. We should continue to use the courts to try to advance our cause.

And we should take it up with the voters in the various states including putting the repeal of Prop 8 on the ballot in California. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't necessarily expect the Obama Administration to be our strong ally. They have shown time and time again that they are not.

[No Elephants]

159. The LGBT community has done all those things. However, the LGBT community is not in control of

government, not elected officials and not judges.

America did not put equal rights for any other group to a popular vote. Presidents like Truman and Kennedy did use Executive Orders and courts used the Constitution of the United States.

No one said, "Let's see if the very same people who have been denying members of this group their rights on a daily basis for centuries will suddenly vote to give them their rights if we just make it a ballot question." And, in fact, no state's people have so voted yet. Nor, do I believe would all states or a majority of the nation's voters so voted in 1964 as to African Americans--or, for that matter, as to women.

[donco6]

137. Follow the court order.

Simple. And don't come back with "they can't" because they most certainly can. They may get sued for doing so, but at least then they'd be on the side of the angels. As it is, they prefer being on the side of Satan.

[No Elephants]

157. Oh, please. An executive order could have suspended DADT discharges on Inauguration Day and the

admin could have chosen to obey this order, instead of to defy it.

[No Elephants]

160. The administration tries to have it both ways. "Judge us by what we say, not by what we do."

"The appeals court's chief judge, Alex Kozinski, who hears administrative cases involving court staff, ruled in January that the law governing federal employee benefits allows insurance coverage for anyone legally married in her home state. When the Office of Personnel Management disagreed, Kozinski ordered the agency last month to comply.

Another Ninth Circuit judge, Stephen Reinhardt, whose decision to grant family coverage to a gay federal public defender was similarly thwarted, has ordered the defender's office to reimburse the lawyer for the cost of buying insurance for his husband.

Kaplan {D of J lawyer} told Golinski's attorneys that the Justice Department had reviewed her case and concluded the Defense of Marriage Act prohibited insurance coverage. Kozinski's order is not binding on the agency, Kaplan said, because he was acting as an administrative hearing officer and not as a judge.

"The administration believes that this law is discriminatory" and supports legislation to grant benefits to federal workers' domestic partners, Kaplan said.

]The administration is not sponsoring legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, however, and is defending the law in a suit by same-sex married couples in Massachusetts."


The administration is not signing an Executive Order to suspend DADT discharges or sponsoring legislation to repeal DADT, either, but it blames that on Congress, too, just as it will no doubt one day be blaming all the flaws in health insurance "reform" on Congress. Oh, well, at least it can't shift the blame for refusing to prosecute Bushco, including Yoo and Bybee.

[and-justice-for-all]

164. That is just bloody absurd....

this shit gets old.