If four of the justices want to take up the case, it’s taken up. The administration has no say in it.
I suppose they can put up a weak case if they don't believe the law in question is worthy of a strong effort but with Obola nothing is as it should be.
Certainly not — the parties at issue argue the case.
Unless the Government IS one of the parties, that is — such as when implementation of a law or rule is involved.
When the government gets involved with a case it is called filing an “amicus curie” (sp?) or “friend of the court” briefing which lays out how the case might be viewed — these are NOT BINDING.
I know of no term for when such a briefing is not filed. I think for this administration it is “holderusdormir” since they seem to think they are litigants in EVERY case.
No, the Supreme Court decides which cases they will hear and which they will not.
Do they have to take one side?
Or can the simply pass on the case?
What are the terms used for passing a case, or agreeing with one side?
Depends on whether the United States is the plaintiff or the defendant. Not all cases that are argued before the Supreme Court involve the federal government. If the U.S. is not involved then the administration has no side.
The department of justice is supposed to be on the side of the constitution. Unfortunately after all these years of political appointments they’ve become the president’s private weapon.
If the United States (or an agency) is a party, then they appear and argue as any other party. If the US is not a party, then either the government can request “amicus” status to appear and take a position on the legal issues presented - or the Supreme Court can ask the government for its position on the issues.
SCOTUS decides what cases they’re going to take (though who knows what arm-twisting goes on behind the scenes). The administration usually does NOT argue in cases because they’re usually not one of the parties. They often are, however, and those they do show up to argue, such as whatever the Osamacare mandate case was called.
Interested, but not directly involved parties may file amicus (”friend of the court”) briefs arguing for one or other finding, and administrations sometimes do that as well.
There is also the scenario where a government agency and a non-governmental special interest entity actually have the same political agenda on a given topic (think EPA and Sierra Club), but for the agency to take the action they both desire would exceed their statutory authority or be politically unpopular, so they arrange for the other entity to sue them to enact whatever freedom stealing fascist tyranny they’re both drooling over, then do a bad job defending the case, losing intentionally, and the court finds in favor of the outside party and orders them to do to you what they wanted to do in the first place. Everybody wins, except the only people who count.
Well, even though it was the law of the land, the OBAMA REGIME decided to NOT defend in court The Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court then decided it was unconstitutional.
PFL
As others have pointed out, the argument for the Government is usually made by the Solicitor General or his staff, but the Solicitor General's office is part of the DOJ. Occasionally, the Attorney General himself will argue a case instead of the Solicitor General.
Neither the executive or legislative branch have any say in what cases are heard and the DOJ has no role unless they are a party to the case.
There are plenty of examples where a government has refused to support the laws they are sworn to uphold. Look at DOMA.
If the case involves defending the law, yes, the DOJ is supposed to defend it. But as we have seen in the Obumbmler administration (DOMA), that doesn’t always happen. Holder only defends the laws Obama likes and they ignore the others.