After reading the actual Order, I believe that some of you may be letting your (our) ideology get in the way of the facts. The Judge's Opinion, although slathered with liberal-speak, appears sound - once Pawlenty has signed a bill into law authorizing a program, he cannot then use the unallotment process to not fund it, as it's nothing more than a backdoor veto. If he doesn't want to fund a program, he must veto that program from the bill, or the entire bill itself.
The issue hinges upon the language of the statute Pawlenty was relying upon - he can exercise this power only in situations where the budget deficit was not anticipated. Here, it clearly was. Nice try on his part.