[Luis Gonzalez]

"...but not relevant to the point that Bush has a duty to speak out."

Let's take a journey into Utopia, shall we?

The way that I have understood that our form of government should work is as follows:

• Legislative Branch: Elected by the people of each State, they write the laws with the best interest of the people of their respective States in mind.

• Judicial Branch: Chosen by their qualifications, and approved by the Legislative Branch, they interpret the law when needed.

• Executive Branch: Responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Federal government, to include all Federal law enforcement, with the President as the civil leader of the armed forces.

If I am right in this interpretation, the presidential duty is to await the decision of the Judicial branch, and enforce it. They may also raise challenges in Court if need be. Now, I know that's a rather simplistic view, and that there are a lot more intricacies and duties, but it’s sufficient to make my point.

I believe that in that perfect void where the Founders imagined a government working, the political ideology of the president should never influence the decisions of the Courts. The way that the Executive Branch is constitutionally able to influence the Courts, lies in the nomination of appointees to the Federal benches.

The real battle is there.

[TLBSHOW]

Bush lawyers lay groundwork to oppose U-M affirmative action policy

but several officials said

Friday night

he is unlikely to stay on the sidelines

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820919/posts?page=6#6

[TLBSHOW]

Letter from Ward Connerly to Karl Rove

e-list of leaders of Anti-Preferences movement

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820929/posts?page=

[Torie]

Well yes, but the three branches cross fertilize each other. Congress must confirm many executive branch nominations, and the solicitor general has been arguing SCOTUS cases for a long time. Morever, this may shock you, but politics does intrude on SCOTUS's decisions. It would be folly for them to ignore the political and other practical effects of their decisions. In some areas, the Constitution just lays down broad guidelines, and it is up to SCOTUS to balance all the competing considerations. A good grasp of civics is a mere start to really understanding how governance works.

[Congressman Billybob]

Hello, my friend,

I was beginning to dispair of finding intelligent life on this thread. Then I came to your post.

Actually, the Executive Branch DOES have a role to play in Judicial Branch decisions. The Solicitor General is there for the purpose of presenting the Administration's position to the Supreme Court. Where the government is a party to the case, the SG must take part in the case.

The second alternative comes in cases where the government is NOT a party. Then, the SG can come in if he and the President want to do that. The last and rarest opportunity is when the SG has not come in, and the Court INVITES a brief from the government. Though this is only a "request," any lawyer ignores a "request" from a judge at his peril.

No matter how the SG comes into a case, the Court always gives great weight to briefs filed by the SG. However, the Court is in no way bound to accept the postion set forth by the SG.

So it is a subtle role, and not a controlling role, but the Executive does have input in the course of Judicial decisions.

Congressman Billybob