"In other words, Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out.
Well, he doesn't have to argue very hard. For example, Bush could instruct Ashcroft to present an absurd or incompetent argument to the Supreme Court, although for political reasons he shouldn't make it too obvious.
Near as I can tell, they're putting the law on trial. The defense attorney has already publicly stated he thinks his client is guilty as sin. Does this represent a fundamental conflict of interest? If they don't like the outcome, can Congress ask to have it declared a mistrial? Could Ashcroft be disbarred for violating professional ethics? (I can't believe I wrote that last one)