[DemforBush]

It would be interesting to know the details of the case here. The judge is surely making her decision based on the Minnesota state constitution, and state constitutions can be tricky things. There may well be some arcane procedural clause that Pawlenty violated. Or, it could be that the judge is full of beans. Like I said, it would be interesting to know all the details.

[OldDeckHand]

Yes. I agree entirely. I'm especially curious about this paragraph in the full story...

Gearin wrote that Pawlenty "crossed the line between legitimate exercise of his authority to unallot and interference with the legislative power to make laws."

I added the emphasis for "unallot". In 25 years of practice, I've never seen the word "unallot" before this ruling. It's quite something.

I HATE these legal cases where the reporter doesn't link to the actual decision, or even name the actual case. It's irritating. Like you, I'd like to read the opinion for myself, and not just take the reporter's characterization of the decision at face value.

[1010RD]

An attorney for Pawlenty had argued that the state would have trouble paying its bills if the administration lost because others hit by cuts would see it as an invitation to file similar lawsuits.Something doesn't add up here. Pawlenty is represented by "an attorney" not the MN AG? Then said attorney doesn't argue the constitutionality of the Governors position as in can he or can't he use the power, but instead argues that it would be costly if the judge ruled against the Governor's decisions. Weird.

Something more than meets the eye is going on here. Might the case have been thrown?