# "...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501 "2013-08-17T17:25:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 150
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/150 "2013-08-19T00:21:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In your hypo, the Court has already blessed it. But what if we explore this question – the law gets challenged, Romney’s administration defends it, and then Dean’s administration comes into power and stops defending it in court? I’m sure you’ll agree that’s a tougher question, **Bricker** , although it is a fair one. I honestly don’t know that a Dept. of Justice can just stop defending an extant case that’s being adjudicated, can they? But let’s say under Romney the law has been ruled in error some way by a lesser court and then Pres. Dean is sworn in and instructs the AG (either his newly confirmed nominee or the existing Romney era guy) not to appeal that decision. I think this is probably not improper. Same answer if PPACA had not already been upheld in SCOTUS and a 2017 administration decided not to defend it. Then I think it bounces back to Congress to fix or scrap the law per the specific judgement. Same with selective prosecution, I think. I recall that the Bush administration had definite political priorities in the selection of cases to prosecute. I recall many of their choices infuriating those of my political stripe, but I don’t believe that was ever seriously considered unconstitutional discretion. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501)._