Judicial vs Executive
 

Recently in Mississippi the governor attempted to place a special election for the senate at the bottom of the ballot. The democrats who believed this would hurt their chances in the election decided to sue. The circuit court sided with the democrats and ordered the governor to put the race at the top.

The governor appealed and the case went to the supreme court. The state supreme court ruled on the case with an 8 - 1 decision that the election by law should be at the top of the ballot. However, they also ruled the circuit court was wrong when it ordered the governor to put the race at the top stating the judicial branch has no power to force the executive branch to comply with a law and only the power to punish them if they break the law.

The single dissenting opinion was over the power of the court to force the executive branch to comply with the law. The dissenter said the court does have power to compel the executive branch to abide by the law.

Putting the politics of this specific case aside do you think the courts should be able to enforce the law on the executive branch?

I want to ask people not to consider this question in the context of the republicans vs democrats or in any other political manner. But simply do the courts have the power to prevent a law from being broken or only to punish once the law has been broken.

Hopefully we can have a discussion without the political talking points.
-----Added 18/9/2008 at 07 : 02 : 01-----
Here is a link to the ruling: http://images.dailykos.com/images/us...rger_order.pdf

Absolutely. I'll admit it's a very uncomfortable situation where there could be corruption on either side or both, but the executive can't just ignore the judicial. What I'd prefer is that the state legislature back up the courts, though. 1v1 doesn't seem right in a 3 branch government.

Yes, without a doubt.

I suspect that the answer depends on the peculiarities of Mississippi election statutes or separation of power rules. I have not read that linked opinion. As a general rule, in pretty much every state, if a plaintiff can show that a defendant is about to break the law and that the violation will cause the plaintiff harm, the court can issue an injunction forbidding the defendant from doing the act that violates the law. I have no clue why the MS court wouldn't have done that in the case you described. The only thing I can think of is that MS must have some unique legal provisions. Maybe I should read the opinion.
-----Added 18/9/2008 at 08 : 34 : 25-----
UPDATE: OK, I looked quickly through the opinion and dissent. Yes, it was MS separation of powers principles that yielded the result in this case. That means the result isn't generalizable to other states.

Wait, I thought the role of the Judiciary as a check and balance already covered enforcement over the Executive?