http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011562200_scow09.html
Now there's a precedent for you. Common sense for the good of the cause says it needs to be upheld to and the practice applied throughout the states.
In Thursday's 5-4 decision, the court said its power to order an executive's actions couldn't be unleashed on the governor's budgeting decisions, since those choices involve political and policy judgments reserved for the elected official.
But even if the court had such power, the majority of justices said they wouldn't have used it in this case, citing the uneven effect it could have in driving state spending away from other programs.
"The court may refuse to grant relief where private rights would be unwisely advanced at the expense of public interests," Justice Jim Johnson wrote for the majority. "The recent severe economic difficulties faced by our state present circumstances dictating such judicial restraint."
In a lengthy dissent, Chief Justice Barbara Madsen said the majority not only misread the law but clearly overstepped the boundaries separating state government's three branches.
