Eugene Robinson:

Let's put this in perspective. Martha Stewart is convicted of conspiracy, making false statements and obstruction of justice, and soon she's decorating a prison cell. Lil' Kim is convicted of perjury before a grand jury and conspiracy, and off to the big house she goes. Paris Hilton commits a crime that could be described as "driving while blond, vapid and obnoxious," and next thing you know she's freaking out in solitary confinement.

But when Scooter Libby is found guilty of perjury before a grand jury, lying to FBI investigators and obstruction of justice -- basically the same crimes that got Stewart and Lil' Kim locked up, and miles beyond anything Hilton ever did -- George W. Bush intervenes to save him from the indignity of spending a single night behind bars. No home confinement, no ankle bracelet, nothing. Now that he's paid his $250,000 fine, [rather, now that Fred Thompson's money-raising committee has] Scooter is free to scoot on with his life.

So, Eugene, what's your point? That the king's courtiers are subject to the rule of law? That's just crazy talk. Extremist.

And E.J. Dionne:

President Bush's rationale for commuting Libby's sentence was based precisely on arguments that have been, as the New York Times reported Wednesday, "routinely and strenuously opposed by his own Justice Department."

"Given the administration's tough stand on sentencing," the Times's Adam Liptak wrote, "the president's arguments left experts in sentencing law scratching their heads."

After you've finished your head-scratching, is it possible to avoid concluding that this was a one-time-only action rooted not in law but in politics and favoritism for an aide who loyally misled the prosecution in a case that implicated top figures of Bush's own administration?

Well, er, no.

And a very good catch by Dionne, there: "One time only"... Hmm... Reminds me of something... What could it be?

I have it! Bush v. Gore! Dionne doesn't make the point, but I will:

One of the many aspects of Bush v. Gore that led to widespread derision among legal scholars--as opposed to the Federalist Society operatives who actually devised the monstrosity--was that it was "good for this time only," and explicitly not precedent setting. So, Scalia and Thomas handed the country to Bush, the quid pro quo being that they'd ultimately get the votes to overturn the settled law they didn't like, and then washed their hands of any responsibility to the life of the law.

That was the original sin of the Bush administration: Unequal, unprincipled, arbitrary application of the law. And--through warrantless wiretapping, the bogus voter fraud cases, through the ginned up indictments of Democrats to affect election outcomes, and now Scooter--abuse of power by working corruption through the legal system has been the hallmark of this administration.

Which is why I don't plan to "get over" Bush v. Gore any time soon. Because it keeps on happening.