Where Does The Buck Stop in California?

I read with great interest the ruling of Judge Frank Roesch regarding Governor Schwarzenegger's decision to furlough state employees to try and get control of the states over running expenses. Judge Roesch's decision overruled the Governor on multiple grounds including that the Governor "overstepped his authority by claiming the furloughs were necessary to deal with the budget emergency". As I read this, the newsprint nearly slipped from my hands, which as we all know is hard to have happen. Here is what I don't understand; there is no place in California for the buck to stop. When I elect a Governor, I do so on the basis of who I believe will be the best chief executive officer. I look at the skill set to establish a vision, determine how to establish, maintain and where necessary to raise revenue, and most importantly how to manage the business of the state so that our expenses don't outstrip our revenue. I vote for the person who I believe is the best at having the buck stop with them. But, in California it seems that the buck doesn't stop anywhere. Each time a decision is made that others don't agree with we get a judge to rule on it, we get proposition on the next ballet, or we get a special election to more quickly overturn the decision. And then we wonder why this state doesn't work. What California is missing is a lack of practical thinking. If there was practical thinking then there wouldn't be a lawsuit filed on the behalf of the service employee unions that they should be treated differently from all other employees. If the Governor has decided that furloughs are the best way to deal with our issues, then everyone needs to participate. It is not right for one group to be treated differently than others. I fear that if California doesn't reshape how it governs so that the buck has someplace to stop, there won't be any bucks to be stopped.