Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Administration Thwarts Court Ordered Equal Rights

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 03:42 PM
Original message
Obama Administration Thwarts Court Ordered Equal Rights
Friday, November 27, 2009

Did Highest-Ranking Gay Official Thwart Equal Rights?

A report published on Time's web site just before the holiday has an explosive bit of information: the chief judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a while back that a lesbian federal employee who reports to him be given federal marriage benefits, and it was actually going to happen until the White House, through the Office of Personnel Management -- headed by openly gay appointee, John Berry -- refused to comply and directed the health insurance carrier of the employee not to proceed:


The order was not published, and garnered little or no notice at the time. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts moved to comply with the judge's ruling, submitting Golinski's insurance form to Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the case would have probably gone away — had the Obama Administration not stepped in. "After the AO submitted Ms. Golinski's form, I thought this matter had concluded," (Judge) Kozinski wrote. "The Executive Branch, acting through the Office of Personnel Management, thought otherwise. It directed the insurance carrier not to process Ms. Golinski's form 2809, thwarting the relief I had ordered. I must now decide what further steps are necessary to protect Ms. Golinski and the integrity of the Judiciary's EDR (employee dispute resolution) plans."


Now Judge Kozinkski has ordered that OPM stop interfering, demanding last week that the Obama administration comply with his order:


Last week, the chief judge of one of America's most prominent federal courts ordered an Executive Branch agency to stop interfering with a court employee's efforts to secure health insurance coverage for her wife. "The Office of Personnel Management shall cease at once its interference with the jurisdiction of this tribunal," wrote Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. He gave the Administration 30 days to permit Karen Golinski, a lawyer employed by the Ninth Circuit, to include the woman she married under California law last year on her family health-insurance plan.


If the Obama administration, which now has less than 30 days to respond, tries to fight this, not only will it undoubtedly cause another (and much bigger, in my opinion) firestorm within the LGBT community, but it's not clear that it actually can fight it, let alone win:


(Judge Kozinski's) order last week demanded that the executive branch reverse course, and gave the Administration 30 days to enroll Golinski's wife as her health-insurance beneficiary. He made clear that if it doesn't, he's ready to use the powers of his court to enforce his decree. University of California law professor Rory Little, a former Justice Department prosecutor and chief of appeals, called the order a "bombshell." "This is like exposing the tip of a huge iceberg that nobody knew even existed," he told TIME. "It's a fascinating question: Do the courts even have the power to do this? Where does it leave things procedurally? Where can the Administration appeal? I think there are five or six lawyers in the (Solicitor General's) office scurrying around right now trying to figure out what to do with this."


And of course, another bombshell here is that the Office of Personnel Management was ordered by the White House to refuse to give a lesbian federal employees her court-ordered rights. John Berry, as head of that office, was thus apparently forced as an openly gay man to deny another gay person, and the LGBT movement itself, of rights, even in the face or a court order.Is this how openly gay appointees must operate within the Obama administration -- not as advocates on behalf of civil rights but rather as lackeys charged with blocking equal rights for their own kind? That, if true, is enormously troubling.

http://www.signorile.com/2009/11/did-highest-ranking-gay-official-thwart.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. IF the 'advocates' in the O administration are acting as lackeys charged with blocking equal rights
Edited on Fri Nov-27-09 03:52 PM by Vincardog
for their own kind. That, if true, is enormously troubling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Its a little more subtle than that due to the approach the judge is taking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. I asked a Fed HR person/friend about this...
Though clear in principle, it appears to be a murky situation legally. The TIME article is actually captures it fairly well. Its not being fought as a gay rights issue, but the freedom of the judical branch to manage its own employees, which may include separate policies or interpretations of Federal law. OPM's policy is clear, a Federal employee is a Federal employee and the Judiciary cannot set its own rules. Only way to get this solved is via SCOTUS. As it stands now, until DOMA is repealed or overturned, OPM says they will not do it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1942791,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. the thing is
That a very similar case in CA resulted in the Judge ruling that part of DOMA is unconstitutional. The Obama administration had previously maintained that they were only defending DOMA in all these cases, because traditionally the DOJ defends laws on the books, UNLESS they have been found unconstitutional by a lower court. Not that this has occurred, one wonders what grounds they will use to keep fighting in favor of DOMA.

http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=11931
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. It reads like it is very similar to this one...based on judicial branch setting its own personnel
policy, vice a straight up DOMA fight. I am a former Fed. That is going to be a real big fight inside the Federal government since OPM runs personnel issues and policies for the entire Federal workforce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
23. Wasn't there talk at the cocktail party announcements over the last
LBGT disaster about Obama extending Federal benefits to more of our partners?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. I've never heard of signorile.com, I followed the Time mag link. Here it is...
if anyone wants it. It's quite eye opening, bit discouraging. I'm glad to see that the judge is coming at it more from a stance of Executive Branch interfering with Judicial Branch, I think that was a good tactic and will be solid ground.

I also like that this was/is a Reagan appointed conservative, who doesn't always judge conservatively, but nonetheless he's not going to be able to be accused of being a liberal, elite, blah blah.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1942791,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Signorile is a very know and respected gay rights activist and radio host n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. He is really misrepresenting this case, and IMO building false hope
The Time article is a must read to understand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Did you read my other post to you
there is an almost identical case wherein DOMA provisions were ruled unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I disagree it took out DOMA. Its was like this current one.
I certainly do not support DOMA, but some judges attacking uniform personnel policies across Federal Civil Service is not the way to go. In the Time article the judge discussed how this could be more than just DOMA issues as well, and was not GLBT focused. This is headed to SCOTUS where I would expect OPM to win.


Take DOMA head on, in Congress and the courts, and be done with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. DOMA is being taken head on
in the Olson/Boies case (in CA) http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202431031183

and the GLAD case in MA, amongst others. http://www.glad.org/doma/lawsuit/

And yes, the similar case in CA with the Fed worker that I cited resulted in the Judge finding provisions of DOMA unconstitutional:

"Indeed, Reinhardt ruled for Levenson last year, but the Office of Personnel Management (ironically headed by the highest ranking openly gay official in the administration) refused to comply, citing the Defense of Marriage Act, even though Reinhardt had overruled its provisions in this case. Reinhardt’s response last week was to order the Office to give Levenson the cash equivalent of the benefits.

http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=11931
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Full agree, and its a good thing
I have no doubt this administration or the Congress will do the right thing and kill DOMA, its going to be up to the courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. he's the one that popularized "outing" closeted powerful gays
Edited on Fri Nov-27-09 04:23 PM by jonnyblitz
who actively worked against or hindered gay rights back in the day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. Didn't Obama sign the Federal Employee Equal Rights Bill which gives Equal Benefits to LGBT couples?
Edited on Fri Nov-27-09 05:53 PM by berni_mccoy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. medical benefits weren't included
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Ah, it was for foreign service employees and their partners abroad
"For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Fact-Sheet-Presidential-Memorandum-on-Federal-Benefits-and-Non-Discrimination/

I think it's because DOMA is preventing him from going further. DOMA has to be repealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. It falls short of providing insurance.
http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/11/06/House_Moves_Federal_Partner_Bill_6921.html

In June, President Obama signed an executive order that extends some benefits but the order changed little; it offered federal employees sick leave to take care of a sick partner or a non-biological child, but partners remain blocked from access to primary health insurance and pension programs. At the time, Obama mentioned the bill, saying Congress would need to fill in the gaps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. no health benefits amongst other things n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Thanks ruggerson. I was confused because medical was included for foreign service members
and their partners abroad.

It looks like DOMA was the limiting factor here.

Thanks for the clarification and the understanding. I'm trying to get better informed on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. exactly, berni
DOMA was the limiting factor and the OPM cited it in its arguments. A very similar case (also in CA involving a Federal employee seeking federal benefits for his legally married spouse) resulted in a judge ruling against key parts of DOMA.

What this means, legally, is the DOJ now has a legal justification to stop defending DOMA, as a lower federal court has now ruled parts of it unconstitutional. I'm sure there is a lot of ongoing discussion in the DOJ and the WH pursuant to all these cases.

Many are hopeful that Olson and BOies will prevail in District court in CA with their broad anti-DOMA case, which would truly then free up the DOJ to stop defending it in the ensuing Court of Appeals and the USSC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. I'm pressuring my reps to support repeal of DOMA
I'm glad the ninth circuit found it Unconstitutional. It needs to be undone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
19. The only way to judge this is to read the court opinion
The media will never give an accurate summation of it. They never do.

Just like the court that supposedly cancelled a couple's mortgage. The way it is reported, it looks as if a judge can rule anything they want to regardless of the law, just because they don't like one of the parties. That case is on appeal and if overturned, DU will erupt in outrage without ever looking at if the law justified the opinion or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC