[WOBBLY BOB]

Justice Gildea's dissent is outstanding. She not only hits the nail on the head regarding this case, she also offers a universal and timely observation regarding the role of the judicial branch in interpreting and applying the law.

In our constitution, the people of Minnesota restricted the ability of the state government to deficit spend. The political branches have agreed on a process in the unallotment statute for ensuring that the government meets this obligation. Whether that process is the wisest or most prudent way to avoid deficit spending is not an issue for judicial review. That question should be left to the people themselves to debate and resolve through the political process.

The judiciary's duty is simply to apply the law as written by the legislature --Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud, 765 N.W.2d 64, 68 (Minn. 2009) (Magnuson, C.J., for a unanimous court). The majority is unable to do so because the language the Legislature used in the unallotment statute leaves the majority with uncertainty and ambiguity. The majority therefore rewrites the statute to insert additional conditions, and then finds that the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget(Commissioner) violated the statute because he did not comply with the conditions the majority has added.

I do not find the language the Legislature used uncertain or ambiguous as applied to the unallotment at issue in this case. I would not re-write the statute; I would apply the language as written.

[MNJohnnie]

(b) An additional deficit shall, with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission, be made up by reducing unexpended allotments of any prior appropriation or transfer. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the commissioner is empowered to defer or suspend prior statutorily created obligations which would prevent effecting such reductions.

There is no rational way to read that to mean what the Judges ruled.

The Judges simply decided "We don't want this Governor to have this power so we simply will rule he does not have it." Wonder what these Judges think the VETO is for. Unallotment was a rational way to balance the Legislative and Executive branches powers. NOW, thanks to these judges, i suppose what ever the Legislature wants will have to become law since we HAVE to have a balanced budget.

Frankly Pawlenty should just veto everything that includes any tax or fee increases this bunch of clowns sends him.

The Minnesota Progressive clowns in the Judiciary wants all power in the hands of their do-nothing-but-draw-their- wildly-inflated-per-deium, incompetentants at the Legislature, let make them figure out how to balance the budget.

I suppose the next step these clowns in robes will decide is the Governors veto is illegal.