9th Circuit Judge Pregerson predicts en banc panel will allow recall election to proceed

How Appealing | 9-20 | Howard Bashman

[ambrose]

 
Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson predicts en banc panel will allow recall election to proceed as originally scheduled: The fun never ends in the Ninth Circuit, as Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson -- one of the three judges on the original panel that unanimously ruled that the recall election should be postponed -- has publicly spoken out about the case to a reporter from The Los Angeles Times even while the case remains pending before the court on which Judge Pregerson serves.

An article by Henry Weinstein published in today's edition of The LATimes under the headline "Court to Reconsider Delay of Recall Vote; A panel of 11 appellate jurists will hear arguments Monday; Some experts expect the original decision to be overturned" reports:

The makeup of the new panel caused one of the original three judges to predict their decision would be overturned.

"You know who's on the panel, right? Do you think it's going to have much of a chance of surviving? I wouldn't bet on it," Judge Harry Pregerson said in an interview.

* * * * *
"Judge Paez, Judge Thomas and I ? we did the right thing," Pregerson said. "We're there to protect people's rights under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, no matter who's involved, and a lot of people don't like it. That's their problem, not mine."

It is extraordinarily unusual for a judge to speak to the press about the merits of a matter currently pending before his court. Indeed, whichever party loses before the eleven-judge en banc panel could ask for rehearing en banc before all twenty-three non-recused judges on the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Pregerson is in that group. On the other hand, this is not the first time that Judge Pregerson has behaved in a manner quite different from the way that every other federal appellate judge would behave, as my Los Angeles Times op-ed published on June 1, 2003 explains.

Update: Don't simply take my word for it -- this document posted on the Ninth Circuit's own Web site states that "Due to codes of ethics restrictions, judges are unable to discuss the merits of the case."

Second update: Attorney William J. Dyer of Texas comments "I'm almost speechless that Judge Pregerson isn't."

posted at 9:24 AM by Howard Bashman

[ambrose]

ping

[ambrose]

Source for above article:
http://appellateblog.blogspot.com/

[Saundra Duffy]

Duh. People have already voted absentee.

[vbmoneyspender]

"You know who's on the panel, right? Do you think it's going to have much of a chance of surviving? I wouldn't bet on it," Judge Harry Pregerson said in an interview.

When you appeal something to a federal court of appeal, I thought the outcome of the appeal wasn't supposed to depend on who you get on your panel. </snickering off>

[truthkeeper]

The article indicated a possibility the hearing might be televised. When do you think we might know for sure if it will be? I will be sure to rearrange my schedule to watch.

[ambrose]

1pm, CSPAN

[truthkeeper]

Thanks! Put up a thread and I'll bring the popcorn.

[Hoverbug]

"You know who's on the panel, right? Do you think it's going to have much of a chance of surviving? I wouldn't bet on it," Judge Harry Pregerson said in an interview.

There it is, folks, from the mouth of a Federal Judge. He has just admitted that the law does not matter, it is who the judge is.

I know we all knew this already, but this is the first time I've ever heard a judge admit it. They usually harumph and claim complete unbiased adherence to law, claiming it's the only thing that saves us from despots!

Hb

[woodyinscc]

Before Pregerson made his ruling he said, "I will follow my conscience.

[Pegita]

Over here, MarMema ... Rule of bench vs. Rule of law ...

[CasearianDaoist]

You should forward that to Brit Hume.

[seenenuf]

Beware! I believe this 'pre-spin' on the 11 Judge panel is the lib media at their best. Eight of the eleven were appointed by Clinton/Carter - only 3 by Reagan/Bush. Terrible odds.
The OC Register's headline (over a NYT story!) is
"Recall panel judges seen as conservative". I read that
to mean than if the election is on for 10/7, it will be
blamed on a conservative court - or if not, it will be spun that the law was so clear, even the conservative court decided on the March election date. Give me a break!

[Hoverbug]

Before Pregerson made his ruling he said, "I will follow my conscience.

He has one?

;-)

Hb

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> "We're there to protect people's rights under the equal protection clause of the Constitution..."

Yeah whatever. Sometimes it seems as though they believe that is the entire constitution. Clearly, there are portions of the bill of rights about which they are unaware.

I wonder, in which government body impeachment proceedings are begun for US Circuit judges. It's time.

[Princeliberty]

I would doubt you could come up with a 9th panel
of judges that was conservative.

And for the judge to be talking to reporters
is way out of bounds and to even predict his
decision will be reversed?!

[Free Vulcan]

Where does the 9th have any jurisdiction over a state election?

This is some of the most undignified behavior I have ever seen out of a federal judge. His politics bleeds out of him like an open wound.

[Eva]

Follow his conscience, as opposed to follow the law?

[woodyinscc]

I am sorry I left out the sarcasm alert. This is just more proof that these Judges think the oath they take, is just a formality!!