What rights and where does it show that exactly?

In 1992, he was the key figure in the Ninth Circuit's repeated refusals to allow the execution of Robert Alton Harris to proceed. Eventually, the Supreme Court told the Ninth Circuit to stop issuing orders in the case.

"Judge Pregerson was openly defiant of the Supreme Court, so he's got a vision of precedent that is slightly different" from most, said Hastings College of the Law professor Vikram Amar.

And during his 1979 confirmation hearing after being nominated by President Jimmy Carter, Pregerson said, "If I had to follow my conscience or the law, I would follow my conscience," according to the Los Angeles Times.

"It's not good for the justice system for a judge to disobey the Supreme Court. Even though people may agree with him, we risk legal anarchy if judges refuse to follow Supreme Court precedent"

Few understand the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, its all- encompassing power, or its influence upon society and their daily lives. Hopefully, after reading this article, eyes will be opened and concern will be generated to concentrate their effort to bring about change in the Ninth Circuit.

The author of this article, an expert on Ninth Circuit corruption, is well qualified to write on this subject, having had years of experience with them.

As a practical matter, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the final court of recourse, setting all policies affecting everyone within the western half of the United States. Only in theory is the United States Supreme Court a court to which one may appeal Ninth Circuit decisions. While it does have power to overturn Ninth Circuit decisions, it seldom occurs; but when it does, the Ninth Circuit is known to ignore and even defy Supreme Court decisions reversing them.

In the pantheon of liberal jurisprudence, there are few courts that can hold a candle to the Florida supreme court, which, during the fateful 2000 election, acted as if it was uniquely empowered to rewrite Florida election law from the bench. There is one court, however, that will not give up its title as the most-liberal and most-reversed court in the country so easily. Such titles must be earned over time, and this court, which has worked long and hard to truly deserve this title, will not be supplanted by such a relative newcomer. I am speaking, of course, of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — a court which Monday issued a temporary injunction postponing California's recall election based on a clear misapplication of the U.S. Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision.

Court watchers were not surprised by this outcome. The day that the panel of judges selected to hear this case was announced, many on both the left and the right believed the decision was foregone. After all, the panel includes Judge Pregerson, who, following the Supreme Court's decision upholding California's three-strikes law, issued a series of dissents stating that he cannot apply the three-strikes law in good conscience. Judge Pregerson makes no attempt to distinguish the cases in which he dissents from the case decided in a contrary fashion by the United States Supreme Court. He does not even attempt to apply a legal rationale for his dissent. Rather, he asserts his own will in place of the legislature which wrote the law, and the United States Supreme Court, which declared that specific law to be constitutional.

Then there is Judge Thomas, who gained notoriety recently for authoring the decision which, by applying a procedural rule retroactively, has the potential to overturn more than 100 capital cases. Judge Thomas issued this decision despite the fact that every other circuit (including, ironically, the Ninth Circuit) had previously found that the principle of law that he on relies does not apply retroactively.

Finally there is Judge Paez, who referred to California's Proposition 209 — a popularly enacted civil-rights initiative which prohibited the use of race as a factor in admissions to state universities — as an "anti-civil rights initiative." Conveniently, the question presented to the court of the whether election may go forward in October affects not only the recall, but the Racial Privacy Initiative sponsored by Ward Connerly. As luck would have it, Mr. Connerly was also the sponsor of Paez's favorite: Prop. 209.

You should be grateful we live in a society where innocent untill proven guilty is the rule of law and habeas corpus exists, not the other way around (and sadly, that is becoming the case under Bushco).