"What does 'ultimate deference' mean? Bow to it?"
Terrific op-ed in the LA Times over the weekend by Barry Siegel on the Bush administration's frequent use of the state secrets privilege.
Between 1953 and 1976, the government invoked the privilege in only five cases; between 1977 and 2001, in 59 cases. In the last six years, the Bush administration has invoked it 39 times, according to the best available count -- or more than six times every year. Along with the numbers, the scope and definition of what constitutes a state secret has expanded -- now including what one judicial decision described as "bits and pieces of seemingly innocuous information" that might form a revealing "mosaic."
Government lawyers have found that merely waving the Reynolds flag in the background for effect gains them deference from judges. Rarely has a court rejected a government claim of privilege.
[…]
Over time, the desire to protect military secrets has started to look a good deal like the impulse to cover up mistakes, avoid embarrassment and gain insulation from liability.
But a few federal judges are finally getting fed up:
In the summer of 2006, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco and District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ventured to deny government state secrets claims in the domestic surveillance and eavesdropping cases. "It is important to note that even the state secrets privilege has its limits," Walker wrote. "While the court recognizes and respects the executive's constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it. . . . To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty."
[…]
Pregerson wondered what roles judges were to play when the executive branch invoked state secrets: "Who decides whether something is a state secret or not?"
Hearing the deputy solicitor general talk of "ultimate deference" due the executive branch, Pregerson asked: "What does 'ultimate deference' mean? Bow to it?"
.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"What does 'ultimate deference' mean? Bow to it?"
More like kneel to it. And swallow.
Even liberals were ashamed of Judge Taylor's opinion.
The hell they were.
Although I have no facts to support either x,y's position OR joe's position, I suspect that joe is... wait for it... joe is right.
CB
I wonder how many skeletons will come out once Dubya doesn't have the god-dammed reigns of power anymore..
I thought 'Ultimate Deference" was what Nanki Poo was said to have shown to Pooh Bah after his head was cut off.
Incidentally, I think the Chorus is giving a great description of nearly every politician I have ever encountered.
I wonder how many skeletons will come out once Dubya doesn't have the god-dammed reigns reins of power anymore..
Fixed.
If there's another attack, it's all Reason's fault. Just because.
I always thought it was "ranes". Oh well.
I fucking love the Mikado.
I wonder how many skeletons will come out once Dubya doesn't have the god-dammed reigns of power anymore..
From what we now know after the fact about Reynolds...
Why does the Constitution hate America?
Perhaps I should clarify. They were happy with the result, but not the reasoning behind it. It could have been a much better opinion had she taken the time to think about the issues; instead she wrote a screed. Right result, wrong reasons.
I gotcha now.
Yeah, I've heard that.
And here's the evidence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701540.html
Money quote:
"[T]he decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit [Judge Taylor] , striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful."
Um, the Washington Post isn't liberal. It's painfully Beltway-centrist. Pro-Clinton impeachment, pro-Iraq War, and pro-Social Security privatization, pro-Bush judges, and on and on and on.
I agree that it's Beltway centrist, but that tends to be more liberal on average. It's certainly not in your face liberal like the NYT, but more so than your average citizen.
And even if we disagee about the Post's political slant, wouldn't you -- a liberal -- agree that the opinion is poorly reasoned?
And here's YLS professor Jack Balkin on Taylor's opinion:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-strikes-down-nsa.html
Money quote:
"Although the court reaches the right result-- that the program is illegal, much of the opinion is disappointing, and I would even suggest, a bit confused."
x,y,
I don't know enough to venture an opinion on the merits.
I reviewed it when it was first issued. I have to agree with the Post and Prof. Balkin.
The phrase "ultimate deference" puts me in mind of Ozymandias, for some reason. Look on my works, ye mighty!
so that the strong should dominate the weak?