If true, yippie. No matter how Bush comes out on the case, he needs to speak, on a case of this importance. He should not duck. That is what leadership is all about. If he does duck, I will think less of him even than if he supports the U of M position, and wades into the public square to defend it. My own position is inbetween which is often typical for me, 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:
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.