John, you are putting the cart before the horse by claiming the courts have a remit to review the revelation that the law may have broken by Bush and others. The judicial branch can't just leap into the fray and presume a crime has been committed, so begin a review.

At the federal level, an investigation must first take place, a grand jury be sworn in (federal cases require a grand jury, states cases don't always require one), etc etc a la the Plamegate procedure.

The remit of the judicial branch in an instance where wrongdoing is alleged to have been committed by the president, is to first allow Congress to investigate, or a Special Prosecutor be appointed by the Justice Department, or both. Then, and only then, can the courts become involved in the adjudication of the case.

It is quite different when it is a sitting president who is the target of a criminal investigation.

This is just shocking. Or as the NY Times reports today:

"William C. Banks, a widely respected authority on national security law at Syracuse University, said the N.S.A. revelation came as a shock, even given the administration's past assertions of presidential powers.

"I was frankly astonished by the story," he said. "My head is spinning."