“The Constitution makes no provision for judicial participation in the annual budget process, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that that (sic) the Judiciary lacks power to direct the Legislature to make an appropriation or the Governor to recommend or approve one.”
and later on pages 5-6:
“The trial court found that Chapter 78, a mere statute, creaes a valid, immutable, constitutionally-protected contractual right.”
and later on page 11:
“The Governor had his objectively supportable reasons, and the Legislature undoubtedly had theirs. The point is not that one side is right and the other wrong, but that both sides exercised the fiscal discretion and authority that the Constitution vests in them. The constitutionally-designed fiscal process worked as planned.”
So if the judicial branch has no role in anything regarding the budget process then why is the state arguing before them?
Full Monty Python sketch: