Interesting post by Hugh Hewitt regarding the ninth circuit leftist judge Harry Pregerson.
September 20, 2003
Posted at 4:20 PM, Pacific
A few years back I ended up on a jury --a serious case with a serious crime at issue. It is a story for a different day why counsel for the defendant left me on the jury, but there I was. A reporter for the Los Angeles Times wandered by the courtroom while we were in the hallway on a break, spotted me re-entering the proceedings and taking my place among my fellow jurors, and promptly tracked down a number for me and left a message asking me to call to discuss what it was likesit on a jury.
The judge hadn't instructed the jury not to respond to calls from the press as the case didn't have a high enough profile to warrant such a precaution, but I knew immediately that it would be inappropriate to return the call, even if only to tell the reporter that it would be inappropriate to discuss the experience. Instead I informed the judge of the call, who called the reporter to discuss remedial courtroom ethics, and who then instructed all of us never to return a call from the press.
I was reminded of this when Priorities & Frivolities boomshock.blogspot.com pointed me to an astonishing statement by Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson in this morning's Los Angeles Times. Judge Pregerson is glum about the chances of his outlandish decision, taken with two others to cancel the California recall, being upheld by 11 of his colleagues. Pregerson points to the make-up of the panel, which has been described by others as moderate to conservative by Ninth Circuit standards. This is an admission by Pregerson, of course, that his and the others' first decision is so nakedly political that its reversal by a center-right court is assured. But it is the Judge's breach of an obvious requirement of ethics to remain silent that is newsworthy. That obligation is obvious and intuitive for anyone trained in the law, and he should have known better. In fact, I suspect he did know better, but couldn't be bothered by such considerations. His conscience must have made him do it.
A prize will be bestowed on any reader who can e-mail an instance of any other federal circuit judge commenting on a rehearing en banc on a matter in which he participated as a judge to a newspaper reporter 48 hours before the rehearing. Or within 72 hours, or a week, or a month for that matter --it just doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because it injures the appearance of justice, and calls into question the good faith of the other judges who will be hearing the matter en banc.
It is a shocking breach, but because Judge Pregerson is old, a veteran of unquestioned courage, and a liberal's liberal, it will go unsanctioned. I refer readers who missed it to my WeeklyStandard.com column weeklystandard.com on Judge Pregerson from Thursday: Judge Pregerson, like others on the Ninth Circuit, is not bound by the ordinary rules that apply to mere mortal citizens.
And Patrick Leahy, Barabara Boxer and Chuck Schumer really expect us to take seriously their arguments that they are concerned about the independence of the judiciary as they line up filibusters of nominees like Carolyn Kuhl and the other victims of their perverse and destructive vendettas. If their concern was real, we would be hearing from them not only on the absurdity of last Monday's ruling, but also on the sadness of Judge Pregerson's outburst. |
