Law made bad administrative decisions based on trusting psychologists who told him that they'd cured molesters.
Weakland was a unchaste homosexual who paid off his lover with diocesan money, in addition to various other faults, like sitting on this report for 19 years.
Law is a glorified parish priest in Rome. (He was not put there by BXVI, but by JPII.)
Weakland is the retired bishop emeritus of Milwaukee, where he gives interviews to NY Times reporters complaining about how the Vatican moved too slowly on cases he hadn't bothered to tell them about.
You'll note also that Law was hated by the left, and Weakland was loved by them.
They are both out of circulation now. Remember, no charges were ever brought against them and there’s really not much else, other than what it has already done, that the Vatican can do. They should have removed Weakland long ago, but JPII was pretty lax and, furthermore, there probably hadn’t been any complaints about him because he was protected by a very entrenched liberal/gay alliance in his diocese. However, now that he’s been removed, I think the evil Weakland should be forced to shut up. He is ruthless in his attacks on the Pope.
Law’s case is more ambiguous, since he was not involved in any of the wrongdoing (most of which had occurred under his then deceased predecessor and some of which in fact had happened on the watch of an even earlier bishop) and was not in charge at that time, and in fact handled it according to the guidelines then in place. They were obviously not rigorous enough, since they were products of the 70s and 80s (like those lax sentencing laws in the secular system that let murderers and rapists out of prisons after a 15 minute sentence to kill again). Law became the target of the press in Massachusetts not because he was personally involved in the sexual abuse or really even in a “cover up,” but because he was perceived as conservative (by Massachusetts standards) and was very outspoken in his opposition to abortion.