Roger, if it comes to this at some point, I doubt Obama’s Justice Department — especially if Holder is confirmed as AG — will feel itself bound to defend federal statutes.

In 1999, when Holder was Deputy AG, the Justice Department declined to defend a federal statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 3501) which Congress had enacted in the late 1960s in an effort to reverse Miranda v. Arizona. The statute would have permitted the admissibility of confessions, even absent Miranda warnings, if it could be proved that the defendant had not been coerced (i.e., that his will had not been overborne). So, for example, if a guy confessed but a cop had screwed up in reading him his rights, the statute would still allow the confession to be introduced at trial if the government could show, say, that the defendant had been treated well and had previously been arrested 10 times (i.e., that there was no question he had been read his right before and understood them).

Miranda, of course, is one of the great sacred cows of the Left. Consequently, even though (a) there was a perfectly defensible position that the statute was consitutional, (b) a bank robber’s conviction was at stake, and (c) that conviction had been won by Clinton-era prosecutors in Virginia, the Reno/Holder DOJ took the position that the statute was unconstitutional and the conviction had to be reversed. The Supreme Court ended up having to appoint a special counsel to take the pro-law-enforcement position — which it ultimately ruled against (as is apt to happen when the Justice Department decides to take the crook’s side). The case was Dickerson v. United States (2000).

Bottom line: when the Lefty agenda is at stake, expect Obama’s Justice Department to defend the Lefty agenda. Statutes will be urged or jettisoned based only on that, and not on any obligation Justice has to defend defensible enactments of Congress.