The Founding Fathers who wrote the United States' constitution didn't get everything right.

For instance, they could have been a little more precise on their Second Amendment language. But when it comes to the creation of the judiciary as a third, independent, branch of government, they really knew what they were doing.

Montana's unending school lawsuit is a case in point.

In this case, the plaintiffs -- school districts, educators and others convinced that the state is underfunding public education -- are taking on both the executive and legislative branches of government. Judges are their only recourse. And, in large part, judges (and justices) in Montana are elected to their positions, rather than people carefully appointed by one ideologue or another for their political leanings.

It is frustrating for governors and legislators who view their elected status as a green light to make all the decisions, but that same elected status gives judges power over matters involving the law, legal precedents, and the interpretation of the constitution. Specifically here, on what exactly is a "quality" education promised by Montana's constitution.

We have no idea how this lawsuit is going to end up. Still, District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock's refusal to simply agree that schools have been adequately funded over the past couple of years because the governor (and no doubt a majority of legislators) say so is what an independent judiciary is all about.

Sherlock noted in his order denying a request to throw the case out of court that funding changes made in 2005 and 2007 may not have been very substantial since they amount to just 5 percent of schools' general fund budgets. That's an interesting tea leaf, but it is anybody's guess whether he would buy the schools' goal of an additional $260 million a year for public education, even if he found for the schools.

In any event, this whole case is a good example of how important, how often, the third branch of our government really is.