IF every matter that the executive failed to resolve satisfactorily ended up in the courts, the legal system would likely buckle under the strain.
As it is, a judge was asked to rule on what is arguably the most contentious matter in the respective in-trays of the first and deputy first ministers.
The legislation covering the victims and survivors' pension scheme that they have been tasked with implementing is not of their own making.
The failure of previous Stormont administrations to grasp this particularly potent nettle meant it was left to Westminster to legislate on the issue during the devolved institutions' three-year absence.
Sinn Féin argues with a degree of justification that it is bad law, failing to to take into account that what went on in the north was an extraordinary conflict in which people did things they wouldn't ordinarily have done.
Yet the rest of its executive partners signed up to the scheme, its full implementation delayed only by Sinn Féin's refusal to nominate a department to oversee it.
The party's traditional base may argue that it did the right thing, but politically and tactically it will likely be judged a bad play.
Judge McAlinden's ruling makes it clear there is no legal basis for blocking the scheme and if Sinn Féin is to be part of the government it must take difficult and unpopular decisions.
Instead it gave the impression of a party of protest, digging in its heels and adopting a stance that was absolutist.
Leadership involves an element of risk, compromise and sometimes swallowing the unpalatable.
If the institutions are to work on a sustainable basis, Stormont's main partners need to break out of the endless cycle of process and begin practising real politics.
If the difficult decisions are continually left to judges to make, then the political system risks becoming redundant.