Arthur Andersen conviction overturned

The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of the Big Five firm in 2002 on obstruction of justice charges related to destruction of documents in the Enron debacle. While I find that somewhat odd and a bit interesting, I'm not likely to get worked up about it. It's the left that's more of an anti-corporate interest. Silly, but they're welcome to it.

What I do disagree with--and maybe I have a few things to learn about Justice Department prosecutions--is the Post's assessment that the ruling is a setback for the Bush Administration. Huh?

The Post writes: The decision said jury instructions at trial were too vague and broad for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.

"The jury instructions here were flawed in important respects," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.

The ruling is a setback for the Bush administration, which made prosecution of white-collar criminals a high priority following accounting scandals at major corporations. After Enron's 2001 collapse, the Justice Department went after Andersen first.

The conviction was overturned because of vague jury instructions. That starts and ends with the bench, not the prosecutor. The only people who can think that somehow is a blow to the Administration's Justice Department and their commitment to go after corporate criminal malfeasance speak in talking points.