Obama consideration of criminalizing Bush LAWYERS for their legal opinions raises other possibilities

Although Obama has flip-flopped several times on the issue of seeking retribution from Bush officials and field officers during the Bush years about the issue of "torture", the current situation seems to be that it is the lawyers who prepared memos on the subject who are being considered for targeting. That is, lawyers who prepared opinions based on their research and reading of the Constitution and case law are in danger of suffering criminal prosecution for what are essentially scholarly activities. Heretofore, malpractice has been the only sanction against lawyers for such professional activity and the standard has been very strict such that any lawyer would recognize malpractice as unprofessional and incompetent beyond simple difference of opinion.

The current witch hunt goes to the limit of holding lawyers criminally liable if their opinions differ from those currently in the majority ( not even necessarily by lawyers ). What are we to think of judges whose opinions are overturned by higher courts? Surely, their liability should be similar. The Supreme Court itself would be open to absurd potential liability: every minority of 4 or fewer who have their opinions outvoted by a majority would seem to be guilty of "opinion crime." The idea of an honest difference of opinion seems alien to the thinking of such as Nancy Pelosi and even President Obama who wants the matter subject to the opinion of ONE lawyer, Attorney General Eric Holder ( whose own record raises questions of his past competence and ethics. )