Maybe he left because he knew that Specter was going to ask him if understood that the Constitution trumps statutes. Specifically, his question concerned testimony that was heard during Judiciary Committee hearings that stated the President's program was allowable under Article 2 of the Constitution. If that is true, then the censure is unwarranted, because the FISA question is moot.
While Senator Feingold bloviated for 25 minutes on the separation of powers, and checks and balances of government, he also spent a large amount of it declaring the program illegal. Under the same checks and balances that the Senator quoted, it is the job of the judiciary, not the Congress, to declare acts illegal. There is one exception to that, which is of course impeachment.
Yet, Feingold didn't introduce articles of impeachment, only a censure, for illegal acts. So, I'll leave a few open questions for Russ, what court has found the acts illegal, since the Senate doesn't hold that authority? Secondly, if there is a disagreement among constitutional scholars on whether Article II gives the President the authority to conduct this program, aren't the courts the correct venue to make that decision, and not the Senate?
For a great review of Russ's thoughts on impeachment, see "Liberty, Just In Case"
Michelle Malkin has the Democratic reaction (subdued, to say the least) on the issue.
Below the Beltway has a great piece on this issue also.
Technorati Tags: Feingold 2008 Presidential Authority FISA Bush Censure politics