How trustworthy is that approach to things? In the two politicized branches, legislature and executive, such criticism arguably may be warranted.
And notice, it is "judicial activism," to not decide an issue the way Luke Hellier in all his skill and wisdom and impartiality would have wanted things.
Get real, Hellier.
Hellier, you are being a true and total hack over this. A hack without shame or discipline. And a dunce.
Consider this -- Who else should have taken such a controversial case, but the chief judge of the court, especially when she owed her initial position only to the electorate (not appointed to the court and then running as an incumbent, or that's what the biography suggests and any reader can correct me in a comment if that's an incorrect reading of things and her first sitting on the bench was via a governor's appointment).
It appears the critics neither cared to read the bio, it's online here, or the Minnesota Constitution before voicing learned opinions and views. The Minnesota Constitution does give a hint of how the judiciary has a position in the government, a role, and how it was discharged in this instance. It's worth a reading, before a pontification. The Pope has read the Bible, before talking about it, before saying what it means.
Below is a screenshot of the leading part of the Gearin online bio, again the full item is here.
_________UPDATE________
Actually, an apology to Hellier and much more so to those putting up comments to his MDE post. The comments there were generally helpful, and Hellier did not use the cliche GOP hack-job hackneyed language term, "judicial activism." I mistook a statement attributed elsewhere to House GOP Whip Dan Severson as if it had been said by Hellier; Severson being the one claimed, by GOP partisans, to have stooped that low in insulting the English language; this link. I erred. It was a GOP politician not a GOP blogger who allegedly was that egregious. Sorry, Luke.
_______FURTHER UPDATE_______
Gary at LFR gives blurb quotes, without links or indications of full words for a context. His source[s] go undisclosed, hence, verification becomes difficult. Gary links to another blogger, here. Take it all with a grain of salt, it is GOP partisan doings, not independent reporting or analysis. The linked blog item says factual debate should not be closed, but remains debateable, yet that blogger also gives absolutely no verifiable links to test the authenticity of his factual claims about the give-and-take he alleges to have happened between executive and legislative branches.
One wonders what record the reviewing Court will have in making an ultimate decision. One hopes and expects more quality will be in that record than baldly asserted outsider views of what happened. Something better hopefully would be passed on to the higher court for review. Judge Gearin gives every indication of being careful in forming a record of factual verities upon which the higher court can base its interpretations of governing law.