Ezra:
Bush's actions were illegal. And that's all there is to that. You can argue that they were justified, or righteous, or that the legislative structure is outmoded and wrong, but none of that changes the fact that they were in flagrant violation of the law of the land, a law the White House could have attempted to amend or asked the Supreme Court to invalidate. Which means that not only were Bush's actions illegal, but he offered no attempt to make them legal. It wasn't simply that he thought the law outdated, it's that he believed it didn't, and shouldn't, apply to him.
Digby also indulges in some lovely irony, quoting some nice Rep. Henry Hyde rhetoric from the Clinton impeachment:
That none of us is above the law is a bedrock principle of democracy. To erode that bedrock is to risk even further injustice. To erode that bedrock is to subscribe, to a "divine right of kings" theory of governance, in which those who govern are absolved from adhering to the basic moral standards to which the governed are accountable.
I suppose this is another case of IOKIYAR, though.
