Of course they're in bad faith. The whole idea is to punt accountability off to something else endlessly. "We can't do X because Y already exists to handle that." Later: "We can't do Y because we already have Z." And thus: "X is the proper way to handle that, not Z."
Precisely. One must understand that the more safeguards we have to enact retribution in these cases, the better. You're not supposed to point to one avenue after loss of another - you're supposed to point towards as many as possible. Before today, the courts were the one we pointed to the most, and they are no longer nearly as much at our disposal as they were before this morning.
