To investigate, or not to investigate

Mickey Nardo has a thoughtful piece on his blog, 1boringoldman.com, about the pros and cons of investigating the bush administration's many possible crimes and misdemeanors -- brought up anew by the revelation that what we thought was a crime and should be investigated (Cheney ordering the CIA not to tell congress about the assassination plans) may have only been a bad judgment call.

Obama says he wants us "to look forward, not backward." Mickey counters with:

I see no way to repudiate them definitively than by taking action in hearings and in the courts. Otherwise, they become precedents. There’s nothing Conservative or Liberal about these points, nothing Republican or Democrat about them either. These are American points.

To which I would add my two cents:

Those who must decide whether to investigate all this should pay attention to Sonia Sotomayor in her confirmation hearings. Two things stand out that are applicable here:

1. The idea that precedent plays a large role in deciding new cases. I think the way she put it was that prior court decisions set precedent, which then becomes “established law.”

2. The idea that one’s background, identity, and feelings do influence what you pay attention to; but in the end it is the rule of law that compels the decision.

If we follow those guidelines, there is not a shadow of doubt that we should investigate.

Ralph