The outcome of the Rod and Robert Blagojevich trial is a much needed affirmation of democracy and the American judicial system. The former governor is a despicable human being, but at least one member of the jury realized that the prosecutors were more dangerous. Democracy in Illinois matured when the case ended. Voters, not federal prosecutors, choose elected officials, for better or worse.
      The government's case as originally presented rested almost entirely on the pernicious "honest services" mail fraud statute, which was virtually voided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its wise decision of last July (U.S. v. Skilling). In dozens of previous cases, the Justice Department has thrown a series of dubious charges against unpleasant individuals and asked juries to find that these defendants were guilty of denying the public of its right to their "honest services," whatever that means. Vagueness is not law, the Supreme Court correctly ruled in U.S. v. Skilling.
       The prosecutor's ticket to stardom ended in July. Even Justice John Paul Stevens, whose dissent in the original "honest services" case (U.S. v. McNally) prompted Congress to enacted the "honest services" law, stepped back in voting with the majority to hobble the law in U.S. v. Skilling. When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Skilling, Blagojevich could breathe easy.
     Still, the government got what it wanted in the Blago case. The former governor is out of office and forever disgraced. But at least one member of the the Blago jury, thank goodness, would not endorse government by prosecutor. There is no way that President Obama will allow U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to retry the Blago case. Fitzgerald's career will be over soon. His replacement should construe the law strictly and bring cases against real criminals.