In a 1997 Vt News Bureau interview, Dean admitted his desire to appoint judges willing to subvert the bill of rights. Now the fallout from Dean's appointments are before the US 2nd Circuit at Foley Square, NYC in two outrageous cases. Docket #s 03-7036, 02-6150, 02-6199, 02-6201 One case is being prosecuted by Washington, DC first amendment attorney Robert Corn-Revere against two of Dean's judges for their banishment of a Vermont "citizen-reporter" for life from all state courthouses because he criticized one of Dean's judicial appointees. The other case features Dean's judges violating Double Jeopardy, First Amendment, State law and the State constitution. See Docket No. 99-445 (Vt. Dec. 13, 2000), aff'g, Docket No. 167-1-99 WmCr (Windham D. Ct. Aug. 30, 1999) Both cases have been briefed before the Manhattan Court awaiting oral argument. Also filing a brief in federal court against Dean's appointees is the Thomas Jefferson Center For The Protection of Freedom of Expression.
Below are links regarding Dean's voicing his problem with the Bill of Rights. He constantly complains about "legal technicalities" (i.e. the Bill of Rights) as he did in the June 22 meet the press interview.
A link to a story regarding the courthouse banishment case.
A commentary on Dean's subversion of the public defender system.
Dean's statement on "re-evaluation" of our "civil liberties".
Criminal sentences doubled during Dean's tenure as a result of his appointments. I wonder how many of those serving these inflated sentences were also subjugated to constitutional deprivations at the hands of Dean's Judicial appointees leading to their convictions? How many of those serving inflated sentences were prejudiced by Deans' subversion of the public defender system mandated by the 6th amendment?
In the Meet the Press interview with Dean while discussing the death penalty he stated,
"So I just—life without parole, which we have which I actually got passed when I was lieutenant governor— the problem with life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. "
Now, according to Dean, the Bill of Rights (ie. legal technicalities) has "nothing to do with justice". In the above quote, is he saying that if someone was unconstitutionally convicted it is better that the government kill them before they can point out the constitutional problems with their conviction?
A further commentary on Dean's death penalty stand.
link to www.washingtonpost.com