Apparently, my discussion of Judge Howard Manning’s court order generated some misunderstanding.  So here are a few additional thoughts:

1. I do not condone judicial activism, even when the judge is a Republican like Manning.  I think I have made that clear.  Thus, I am (and will never be) pleased with any of Judge Manning’s rulings related to his oversight of Leandro.  The separation of powers is not negotiable.

2. I stand by my statement that the order was a loss for the plaintiffs.  As I mentioned in one of my responses to Matt from the N.C. Justice Center, Melanie Dubis (an attorney for the plaintiffs) identified five objectionable actions by the legislature – increasing the discretionary reduction, changing More at Four, cutting professional development, eliminating Learn and Earn online, and discontinuing funding for handheld diagnostic tools.  Of these, Manning’s order applies to only one part of the changes to More at Four, specifically the 20 percent cap.

And let’s be honest, plaintiffs and their Democratic/liberal supporters prayed that Manning would slap an injunction on the state budget and force embarrassed Republican leaders to reformulate a state budget that would add millions to the education budget.  That did not happen.

3. The News & Observer addresses the ambiguity of budget language, which is cause for concern.  But Manning’s ruling is not Shakespeare.  Indeed, I do not blame legislative leaders for calling on Manning to clarify his order.  For example, Manning insists that the issue is not about slots in state pre-kindergarten programs for at-risk preschoolers, but the order suggests that there are not enough slots in state pre-kindergarten programs for at-risk preschoolers.  (“This case is not about numbers and slots…” p. 23)