To what extent is the DOJ obligated to defend federal laws that are challenged in court?  

For example, when Judge Virginia A. Phillips issued an injunction against the enforcement of DADT this week, most people are expecting DOJ to appeal.  The NYT said, "The Department of Justice, however, is required to defend laws passed by Congress under most circumstances."

Are there specific circumstances that require DOJ to appeal or is it just the traditional practice that is usually followed?

Chile's football federation said it would offer a job with its youth teams to Franklin Lobos, a former national team player who had later found himself driving a taxi to make ends meet before he was caught in the mine collapse. AP

That job offer which would allow Lobos to do something he truly loves could provide benefits long after the fame fades away. Article that also goes into several of the offers made to the miners.

Obama's DOJ applied for stay on Judge Phillips DADT ruling, to be followed by an appeal 2.)even as the DOD says it will abide the judges' ruling.

Judge: Suit over health overhaul can go to trial

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) -- Crucial pieces of a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's health care overhaul can go to trial, with a judge ruling Thursday he wants to hear more arguments over whether it's constitutional to force citizens to buy health insurance.

In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said it also needs to be decided whether it's constitutional to penalize people who do not buy insurance with taxes and to require states to expand their Medicaid programs. Another federal judge in Michigan threw out a similar lawsuit last week.

This is an eye-popping find, a Seuss book in its earliest stage, rough Seuss draft, an abandoned project not only never before seen on the market but never before seen or heard of, period.

So, I checked the website, and apparently, that is what it said:

While President Obama and his top aides have repeatedly said they're not even thinking about the 2012 campaign yet, Vice President Joe Biden revealed that they actually are considering it at least long enough for Obama to have recently asked Biden to run again as his running mate in two years.

A senior White House official confirmed to CNN the accuracy of the quotes Biden gave this week to The New York Times, but downplayed the significance of the comments by saying it's an "accepted fact" that Obama is likely to run for re-election again.

And after days of overheated media speculation about whether Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton may replace him on the ticket, the senior White House official said Biden was merely being forthcoming about a very brief conversation he had with Obama about their possible future plans.

"I tell you what, there's real trust, that's why he's asked me to run again," Biden told the New York Times. "Look, he said, 'We're going to run together, are you going to run?' I said, 'Of course, you want me to run with you, I'm happy to run with you.'"

Joe just can't stand it, I guess, all this speculation about Hillary, so he interrupts Obama's recent navel-gazing - currently on display in the NYT - to tell the world that yes, he is still the man!

You'd think Joe would defer to Obama to make news like this, but maybe Joe's not been feeling relevant enough, so he decided to grab some media attention.

It's like Frick and Frack.

Speaking of which, it also turns out that Woodward's source for the Hillary rumor was none other than Mark Penn...

It turns out that by his own acknowledgement, Woodward's claim was not based on inside information from the current White House, but instead came from a relatively old conversation he had with Mark Penn, one of Secretary Clinton's political advisers, for the journalist's new book "Obama's Wars."

"Well I said it's on the table but you know, it's like, you know, a book's on the table, you may read it in the summer," Woodward told Foreign Policy magazine.

Susan Glasser, editor of the magazine, pressed Woodward, "But you're not saying you have any independent knowledge of sources telling that right now President Obama is contemplating such a thing."

"No, of course not," said Woodward.

in fairness, after debate o'donnell said she disagreed with little known scotus ruling of glenda v salem. #desen link

people are saying what the administration should, and possibly may (I never hold my breath anymore), do is appeal it and say to the court "we are appealing it because it is what we are supposed to do and we do not think one federal judge should make a decision like this for the whole country but we think it is unconstitutional and we are not going to argue in support of it.  we will leave that to the 'friends of the court'".