Obama won't oppose ruling weakening 'don't ask'

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

(05-19) 20:19 PDT -- The Obama administration, criticized by gay rights advocates for not following through on a campaign promise to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on military service, has taken a quiet step to allow a federal court in San Francisco to limit enforcement of the policy.

Without fanfare, the Justice Department told congressional leaders last month that it would not seek Supreme Court review of a May 2008 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling cast doubt on the constitutionality of discharging gay and lesbian soldiers from the military for revealing their sexual orientation and required military officials to justify each dismissal.

President George W. Bush's administration had asked the court to reconsider the ruling but fell short of the majority vote needed for a new hearing in December. The Obama administration was given extensions of time to file a further appeal but let the deadline expire May 3.

The decision not to appeal was made "after extensive consultation with the Department of Defense," Attorney General Eric Holder said in the letter to Congress. He said the Justice Department will defend the policy when the case returns to a trial court to determine whether an Air Force officer should be discharged because of a lesbian relationship. In the meantime, the ruling is binding on federal courts in California and eight other Western states covered by the nation's largest appellate circuit.

"This decision makes it significantly easier to strike down at least the application of 'don't ask, don't tell' in many if not most cases," gay rights attorney Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, said Tuesday. Davidson filed arguments supporting the Air Force officer in the case.

"We're happy that this is not going forward to the Supreme Court at this point," Davidson said. He said many opponents of the policy would prefer to steer clear of the high court during a period of international tension when the justices are likely to defer to military decisions.

"Don't ask, don't tell," approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1993, replaced a ban on gays in the military. It bars the armed services from asking members about their sexual orientation but requires the military to discharge those who acknowledge being gay or engage in homosexual activity. At least 12,500 gays and lesbians have been discharged since the policy took effect.

President Obama said during last year's campaign that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military. But he has not made the issue a priority, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates told an interviewer in late March that any change was "down the road a little bit."

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Tuesday that Obama still wants the policy repealed and is consulting with military officials to see that "this change is done in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security."

But until Congress changes the law, LaBolt said, "the administration will continue to defend the statute" in court.

The appeals court ruling, the first of its kind in the nation, came in the case of Maj. Margaret Witt of Spokane, Wash., a decorated flight nurse, who was suspended without pay in 2004 and discharged in 2007 after the Air Force learned of her longtime relationship with a civilian woman.

In reinstating Witt's lawsuit challenging her discharge, the appeals court relied on its interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling overturning state laws against gay sex.

That ruling established a new level of constitutional protection for gays and lesbians, the three-judge appellate panel said. It said courts can no longer accept the government's claim that all openly gay service members weaken the armed forces, and instead must require the Air Force to prove that discharging Witt would promote troop readiness or unit cohesion.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/20/MNBO17NEVG.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Washington - Obama Urges House To Pass Hate Crimes Bill Quickly, Vote Passed 249-175

Washington - President Obama urged the U.S. House of Representatives to pass hate-crimes legislation quickly.

The House is scheduled to vote this week on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (the Matthew Shepard Act), which would permit greater federal involvement in investigating hate crimes and expand the federal definition of such crimes to include those motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.
Last night, President Obama issued a statement to urge the quick passing of the bill by the House this week:

"This week, the House of Representatives is expected to consider H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance – legislation that will enhance civil rights protections, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association. I also urge the Senate to work with my Administration to finalize this bill and to take swift action." White House.

The bipartisan Senate bill is being carried by Democrat Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine. Other cosponsors include Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Republican Susan Collins of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who switched his affiliation Tuesday from Republican to Democrat.

U/D:
Hate-crimes legislation passes House
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a vote of 249-175.

Ethanol test for Obama on climate change, science

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press WriterSun May 3, 10:11 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's commitment to take on climate change and put science over politics is about to be tested as his administration faces a politically sensitive question about the widespread use of ethanol: Does it help or hurt the fight against global warming?

The Environmental Protection Agency is close to proposing ethanol standards. But two years ago, when Congress ordered a huge increase in ethanol use, lawmakers also told the agency to show that ethanol would produce less pollution linked to global warming than would gasoline.

So how will the EPA define greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol production and use? Given the political clout of farm interests, will the science conflict with the politics?

Environmentalists, citing various studies and scientific papers, say the agency must factor in more than just the direct, heat-trapping pollution from ethanol and its production. They also point to "indirect" impacts on global warming from worldwide changes in land use, including climate-threatening deforestation, as land is cleared to plant corn or other ethanol crops.

Ethanol manufacturers and agriculture interests contend the fallout from potential land use changes in the future, especially those outside the United States, have not been adequately proven or even quantified, and should not count when the EPA calculates ethanol's climate impact.

"It defies common sense that EPA would publish a proposed rule-making with harmful conclusions for biofuels based on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions," complained Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

He was one of 12 farm-state senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who wrote EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in March, urging the agency to stick to assessing only the direct emissions.

Ethanol, which in the future may come from cellulosic sources such as switchgrass and wood chips, is promoted by its advocates as a "green" substitute for gasoline that will help the U.S. reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, especially foreign oil. That transition is a priority of the Obama White House.

In 2007, Congress ordered huge increases in ethanol use, requiring refiners to blend 20 billion gallons with gasoline by 2015 and a further expansion to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022.

Congress said any fuel produced in plants built after 2007 must emit 20 percent less in greenhouse gases than gasoline if it comes from corn, and 60 percent less if from cellulosic crops.

Meeting the direct emissions would not be a problem. But if indirect emissions from expected land use changes are included, ethanol probably would fail the test.

Nathaniel Greene, director of renewable energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, said that wouldn't mean the end of ethanol.

Ethanol from existing production facilities is grandfathered and "there are ways to produce advanced ethanol's that would comply with the greenhouse thresholds," even using land use climate impacts if the industry chose to adopt them, Greene said.

But farm interests and their allies in Congress are pushing to get the EPA to at least postpone any consideration of the land-use impacts issue, arguing the science surrounding the issue is uncertain.

The senators' letter said that an overreaching regulation by EPA on ethanol's link to climate change "could seriously harm our U.S. biofuels growth strategy by introducing uncertainty and discouraging future investments."

Environmentalists say there have been enough studies on the indirect impact of ethanol on greenhouse pollution to justify the science.

Ignoring the indirect impacts "will undermine the environmental benefits" of the renewable fuels program "and set a poor precedent for any future policies attempting to reduce global warming pollution," 17 environmental group wrote Jackson in response to the senator's plea.

Greene said the EPA's handling of the ethanol rule will be a "a test of our ability to follow sound science" even when it conflicts with the interests of powerful interests.

The environmental organizations noted that Obama has "vowed to make the U.S. a leader on climate change" and put science over politics, and "now is the time to uphold those pledges."

EPA spokeswoman Andora Andy declined to say when an agency proposal — a holdover issue from the Bush administration — would be issued. Interest groups on both sides of the debate said it could come in days. The White House Office of Management and Budget concluded its review of the EPA proposal last week.

___

On the Net:

Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov

Senators' letter: http://tinyurl.com/cwd69f

Natural Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/

Obama Vows ‘Independent’ Replacement for Souter

By DAVID STOUT

May 2, 2009

WASHINGTON — Justice David H. Souter formally told the White House on Friday that he will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of the current term in June, a development that stirred intense interest about who his replacement will be and how the change will affect future court rulings on abortion and the balance between personal liberty and national security.

President Obama praised Justice Souter and his record on the court, and said he hoped to have a new justice confirmed by the Senate by the time the court reconvenes in October.

Promising to nominate a replacement with “a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity,” Mr. Obama, who startled reporters by walking to the lectern for a cameo appearance in the middle of the daily White House press briefing, said that he would look for a candidate for whom the law was not a matter of abstract theory, but a force that affects real people in their daily lives.

He took no questions, and offered no clue about the choice of a new justice, always one of a president’s most lasting decisions. But even before Justice Souter’s letter was delivered to President Obama in mid-afternoon, the speculation about a successor was rampant, with much of the attention focused on women or minority candidates. Reports of Justice Souter’s deccision to retire first emerged Thursday evening on National Public Radio.

Mr. Obama and some close aides and friends are known to have been thinking for months that he would soon face the need to fill a vacancy on the court. The White House Counsel’s office prepared privately to step up its efforts to search for a replacement on Friday.

Lawyers and legal scholars said on Friday that while Mr. Obama may choose a white man for a later vacancy, he would probably not do so in his first opportunity to shape the court. Names of prominent women and minority jurists, on the other hand, were widely discussed as likely candidates.

At 69, Justice Souter is two decades younger than Justice John Paul Stevens, and there have been no rumors that Justice Souter has serious health problems. But he is known to like his home state of New Hampshire much better than he does Washington.

The immediate reaction to Justice Souter’s impending departure demonstrated how polarizing the issue of abortion continues to be; the fundamental debate over constitutional rights and whether they have been eroded in recent years and, at least implicitly, whether the next justice should be someone other than a white man from a privileged background.

“Justice Souter has been a consistent supporter of abortion rights,” Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights said in a statement. “His departure provides a critical opportunity for the president to nominate someone who has a strong understanding of and voice on the realities of women’s lives and to deliver on his stated commitment to nominate justices with ‘empathy,’ who understand the real life experiences of people.”

The Alliance for Justice issued a statement praising Justice Souter “for his commitment to public service and the rule of law.” His replacement should be “a highly qualified nominee who will uphold our Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms for everyone in America, not just a few at the top,” the organization said.

“Recent appointees to the Supreme Court are aggressively and systematically undermining the Constitution,” the alliance said. That was an unsubtle allusion to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who were picked by former President George W. Bush.

President Obama will surely be under pressure from some quarters to nominate a woman, which would delight Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has made no secret of her disappointment that a woman was not named to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. He may feel the need to select a member of a minority group.

And if he feels it necessary to put someone with “real world” experience on a court now heavy with former appellate judges, he may turn to someone with political, rather than judicial, experience — or someone who has both. A dozen or more names were floated as possible candidates on Friday, including black women, and some had appealing, up-from-the-bootstraps personal histories.

The coming vacancy will be a Democratic president’s first chance to fill a high court seat since President Bill Clinton named Justice Stephen G. Breyer in 1994. President Bush’s nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were in line with the president’s pledge to name justices who would interpret the law, rather than try to make new law — code language for conservative jurists, to the extent that labels are reliable.

Now, President Obama has a strong Democratic majority in the Senate, and he has a chance not to change the ideological makeup of the court at this point but, at least, to keep it from becoming more conservative.

As for labels, Justice Souter is a reminder that they are not always dependable. After being nominated by the first President Bush in 1990, he provided to be far more centrist, even liberal, in his judicial philosophy than the president and his supporters had expected.
endit

Peter Baker, Jeff Zeleny, Jim Rutenberg, Adam Nagourney, Neil Lewis and Doug Mills contributed reporting.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company