{"id":52359,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/john-dean-archive-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"john-dean-archive-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/john-dean-archive-2.html","title":{"rendered":"John Dean Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

Legal Commentary: John Dean Archive<\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n

ARE THE BUSH TWINS PUBLIC FIGURES UNDER THE LAW, WITH ALL THE\n DIRE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT STATUS?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the President John Dean dissects the recent publicity about the Bush daughters, and considers how the twins would fare if they sued. Dean analyzes public figure law to resolve whether, for legal purposes, the twins would likely be considered all purpose, limited purpose, or involuntary public figures — or simply private figures.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Aug. 03, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHEN SUPREME COURT JUSTICES REFUSE TO RETIRE:\n WHY WE NEED MORE MEDIA COVERAGE, AND A CONSTITUTIONAL \n AMENDMENT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the President John Dean discusses the problem of Supreme Court Justices’ staying on the court despite flagging mental acuity. Dean urges more aggressive media coverage of Justices’ health, as well as a mandatory retirement constitutional amendment. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jul. 20, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SHOULD IDEOLOGY BE CONSIDERED BY THE SENATE DURING THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the President John Dean discusses the testimony given at a recent hearing before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a crucial question: Should ideology matter when the President selects, and the Senate confirms, nominees for federal lower court judgeships and Supreme Court spots? Dean reflects on both historical and contemporary evidence to provide an answer.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jul. 06, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EXECUTION AMERICAN STYLE: THE COURT IGNORES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT STATUS OF GAS CHAMBER EXECUTIONS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the President John Dean discusses how the Supreme Court has managed to dodge the question of the constitutionality of execution by the gas chamber, despite strong evidence of the horrors of the method.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jun. 22, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SELECTING FEDERAL JUDGES: THE NEW, LESS PARTISAN CALIFORNIA PLAN<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the President John Dean discusses \n\nthe \n\nincreasing politicization of federal judgeship nominations, and explains why \n\na new plan adopted by California Senators Boxer and Feinstein will provide a \n\npartial solution — and why highly-qualified conservative Ninth Circuit \n\nnominee Christopher Cox should have gotten a fairer shake.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jun. 08, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE OLSON VOTE: HAVE REPUBLICANS POLITICIZED THE SOLICITOR GENERAL’S OFFICE?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean discusses what we can expect from newly-confirmed Solicitor General Theodore Olson: Will Olson be a great Solicitor General, or a partisan hack? Dean also reviews the history of Solicitor Generals, partisan and nonpartisan, through the years.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, May. 25, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RANKING PRESIDENTS – UTTER NONSENSE OR USEFUL ANALYSIS?<\/a>\n\n
\nEveryone agrees Washington, Lincoln and FDR were great presidents, but beyond \n\nthat, does ranking the presidents make sense? FindLaw columnist and former \n\ncounsel to the president John Dean dissects the game of ranking, defends the \n\nmuch-attacked Warren G. Harding, and reflects on our passion for rating the \n\nPrez.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, May. 11, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SHOULD SENATE DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO CONFIRM ALL BUSH SUPREME\n COURT NOMINEES? REFLECTIONS ON PROFESSOR ACKERMAN’S PROPOSAL<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the President John Dean reacts to\n\nYale Law professor Bruce Ackerman’s recent contention that because the\n\nSupreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore improperly paved the way for the\n\nappointment of conservative Justices, the Senate should block the\n\nconfirmation of any and all Bush Supreme Court nominees. Dean explains why\n\nadopting Ackerman’s hardball strategy won’t work.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Apr. 27, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY SENATOR SPECTER’S NEW BILL, JOINED BY SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON, WON’T PREVENT ANOTHER SITUATION LIKE THE MARC RICH PARDON<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean discusses the \n\nrecent bill proposed by Senator Arlen Specter, and joined by Senator Hillary \n\nRodham Clinton, that would impose disclosure requirements for presidential \n\nlibrary contributions and for pardon lobbyists. The bill, Dean argues, will \n\nnot serve its intended goal of avoiding another Rich pardon-type scandal — \n\nand may actually be counterproductive. Dean notes, for example, that the \n\nbill does not provide for immediate disclosure of lobbying contacts, but \n\ndelays that disclosure for 45 days. Thus, even if the bill had been law when \n\nJack Quinn was lobbying for the Rich pardon, Dean contends, it still would \n\nonly have required disclosure of Quinn’s lobbying to the public (and the \n\nSouthern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office) after the pardon had \n\nbeen granted, and after President Clinton had left office. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Apr. 13, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEHIND THE WHITE\nHOUSE’S CLAIM THAT THE ABA’S SCREENING OF JUDGES IS\nPOLITICAL<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the President John Dean goes in \nsearch of the evidence behind the Bush White House’s claim that the ABA \nscreening process for judicial nominees is politically biased — and finds \nlittle basis for the Administration’s decision to cut the ABA out of the \nnomination loop. The issues over the committee’s rating of Judge Robert \nBork in the 1980’s are irrelevant to the question of whether the current \ncommittee is politically biased, Dean argues. Moreover, the comparison done \nby the conservative Federalist Society of the ABA’s treatment of \nconservative and liberal judges is, Dean concludes, deeply and procedurally \nflawed.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Mar. 30, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 4<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n
—<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n<\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n