Yes he could, but that wouldn't remove the lawful requirement that the Office of Solicitor General (Ted Olsen) defend the case for the Government, now would it?
You: he could, but that wouldn't remove the lawful requirement that the Office of Solicitor General (Ted Olsen) defend the case for the Government, now would it?
That's correct, of course. But the post I was answering said that Ashcroft will have no choice but to defend the Campaign Finance "Reform" Bill (assuming Pres. Bush signs it), since that's his job. I simply pointed out that he does have a choice -- he could refuse to abandon his principles, stepping down instead. The same goes for Ted Olson.
Atty. General Ashcroft is more than a lawyer hired to defend an unsavory defendant. He is a political figure, espousing political views, and he has some influence in that regard. So he could make a statement and keep his integrity by resigning.
As you say, even if one or more people do take the extreme step of resigning rather than defending a flawed, un-Consitutional law, somebody will be hired to do the job. And that's fine -- everybody is entitled to an attorney. But is should be a lawyer hired to ferret out the best defense, not a politician whose job is to identify and promote genuinely good ideas for the country (of which this bill is not an example).