Now, here's a man who's confident. Travis County Prosecutor Ronnie Earle didn't seem able to get an indictment against Tom Delay, so instead he's opted for a "moral indictment" in the New York Times. The man is nothing if not confident:

Last week Congressional Republicans voted to change their rule that required an indicted leader to relinquish his post. They were responding to an investigation by the Travis County grand jury into political contributions by corporations that has already resulted in the indictments of three associates of Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader. . . .Yet no member of Congress has been indicted in the investigation, and none is a target unless he or she has committed a crime.

I've already written that it was dumb of the Republicans to try to change the rules to help Delay. But according to Mr. Earle--who of course hasn't a political motivation in his body--this strikes at the very rule of law, threatening our society, our social order, and the work of our law enforcement officials.

There is no limit to what you can do if you have the power to change the rules. Congress may make its own rules, but the public makes the rule of law, and depends for its peace on the enforcement of the law. Hypocrisy at the highest levels of government is toxic to the moral fiber that holds our communities together.

The open contempt for moral values by our elected officials has a corrosive effect. It is a sad day for law enforcement when Congress offers such poor leadership on moral values and ethical behavior. We are a moral people, and the first lesson of democracy is not to hold the public in contempt.

After all, let's get one thing straight: the rule that was changed for the sake of Tom Delay wasn't a general law. It doesn't affect general citizens. It doesn't even affect all lawmakers, only members of a particular party. It's a rule for determining the standards under which they will reject their leadership, and the change was at worst one from a bright-line rule (anyone indicted must step aside) to a slightly more discretionary standard (a committee must recommend whether to remove anyone indicted within 30 days). If one believes that Mr. Earle is acting out of partisan motives, then even if hypocritical it may not be immoral to change the rule: enforcing it could be a manifest injustice.

This is the hypocrisy strikes at the very heart of our rule of law, making the jobs of enforcement officers more difficult? But if this rule is so important, certainly the fact that it's never been enforced by the Democrats upon their leadership is that much more toxic to the rule of law? Or is "hypocrisy" somehow more corrosive to more fiber than allowing an indicted man--remember, no man is even a target of a grand jury in Travis County, Texas unless he's committed a crime--hold a leadership position? Is allowing an indicted Democrat to be chair somehow moral because, hey, at least they didn't change the rules?

It's all very well to say, "Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall." But this rule is not a law, at least not in the general sense. (Do internal party rules have the force of federal law? Can they, since they're not passed even unicamerally?) Whether Mr. Earle is concerned with justice or simple politics, the heavens are not falling around him. Which, again, does the man no favors when one tries to guess his motivations.