Replies

TLB--when there is a case brought in this country and it works its way up to the SCOTUS, I don't WANT my president filing a brief. The whole point of separation of powers is that the judiciary is to be SEPARATE from the executive (and legislative) branch. The justices have to be above reproach, and allowing a presidential brief doesn't serve that role. If the president wants to tell the country his position, he can release a press statement or call a press conference, etc. He shouldn't be interfering with the judiciary.

Plus, when they finally DO outlaw AA, I want it to be free and clear and above allegations of influence. If Bush files a brief, that decision would always be tainted with allegations of presidential influence, which is what SOP is designed elminate. It doesn't have anything to do with his commmittment to being conservative or not.

http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Civil_Rights.htm#Affirmative_Action

Q: What about affirmative action?
BUSH: I’ve had a record of bringing people from all walks of life into my administration, and my administration is better off for it. But quotas are bad for America. It’s not what America is all about, which is equal opportunity and the opportunity for people to realize their potential. So to answer your question, I support affirmative access.

GORE: I don’t know what affirmative access means. Affirmative action isn’t quotas. I’m against quotas. They’re against the American way. Affirmative action means that you take extra steps to acknowledge the history of discrimination and injustice and prejudice.

Q: Are you opposed to affirmative action?

BUSH: No. If affirmative action means quotas, I’m against it. If affirmative action means what I just described, then I’m for it.

GORE: He said if affirmative action means quotas, he’s against it. Affirmative action doesn’t mean quotas. Are you for it without quotas?

BUSH: I may not be for your version.

Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000

"The whole point of separation of powers is that the judiciary is to be SEPARATE from the executive (and legislative) branch. The justices have to be above reproach,..."

I'm having a hard time understanding this. For one thing, this is a statement that assumes all Supreme Court justices are inherently corrupt and unable to act independently. This feeds right into the frenzy that the SC "gave" the election to Bush.

And, based on this interpretation of separation of powers, McConnell and friends (members of the legislative branch) should not go before the Supreme Court and argue against the campaign finance reform bill.

I don't think separation of powers means one branch of the government is prohibited from presenting its opinion to another branch.

IMHO, if Bush and his administration decide to stay out of this case, it will be for political reasons and not a constitutional mandate.