Lessons for Kentucky from Newdow?

There are a couple of interesting points in the Newdow opinion that may be pertinent to the situation created by the Senate Republicans in Frankfort by their seating of a member who had previously been ruled by a court as ineligible. Discussing the issue of separation of powers, the Court remarked,

"The reasons why courts should be hesitant to grant such relief [an injunction against the President personally] are painfully obvious; the President, like Congress, is a coequal branch of government, and for the President to 'be ordered to perform particular executive ... acts at the behest of the Judiciary' at best creates an unseemly appearance of constitutional tension and at worst risks a violation of the constitutional separation of powers."

A similar separation of powers issue probably exists with regard to whether a Kentucky court can force the Senate to take a specific act. The General Assembly is a co-equal branch of government with the Supreme Court, and it would create an awkward tension if the Court ordered the Senate to accept a member different from the one already chosen by that body. What if the Senate refused to obey such an order? The Court has no independent enforcement power.

The Kentucky Supreme Court is not always predictable, however, so I am not going out on a limb to say that they will follow this principle; just that they probably should.