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

[goldstategop]

Judge Harry Pregerson should forced to resign for violating judicial ethics as much as he and his colleagues violated the U.S Constitution, the California State Constitution, and California's laws. Then again he's a liberal political activist in black robes not an impartial judge. No wonder he's pissed off big time. Its almost like he's daring his Nine Circus colleagues to give him one hell of a bitch slap.

[pogo101]

The Planet Pregerson has finally gone even beyond the orbit of Pluto and left the solar system entirely.

For a judge to comment in any substantive manner at all about a case he's actively involved in, let alone in a snotty one plainly indicating a view that law is about "who" and not "what," is shockingly unethical. It ain't bribe-taking, but it's very bad.

[MarMema]

God has given you much wisdom. Thanks for pinging me.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Ok...but I didn't think the others on the 9th were conservatives! I guess Judge P. considers them (LOL) conservatives!

And, good if it is turned over and we can continue voting.

[flamefront]

Its the leftist polemic about everything is based on polititcs. We can thank Clintonism for that.

So when he it says
It is extraordinarily unusual for a judge to speak to the press about the merits of a matter currently pending before his court.
you are right its about 'who' is right and who is left determines the outcome for him.

Way out there !

[Torie]

Freaking amazing. What a mouthy and arrogant hack. I'm crossing him off my Xmas card list.

[Torie]

Freaking amazing. What a mouthy and arrogant hack. I'm crossing him off my Xmas card list.

[Torie]

Freaking amazing. What a mouthy and arrogant hack. I'm crossing him off my Xmas card list.

[capitan_refugio]

"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."

Pregerson was having a snit, wasn't he? And he's wrong about his job description too. He's not their to "protect the people's rights." The judge is there to uphold the rule of law. The rights of the people are best protected by the jury - the true representatives of the people in the legal system.

This is a case where, hopefully, judicial activism will be tossed right into the wate basket, where it belongs.

[Fury]

I'm curious. What ethical considerations are there for a judge to speak on a matter that has yet to come before the court? This seems a bit odd.