The delicate dance of power between the Legislature, the governor and the state Supreme Court becomes more interesting by the day.

There was a time, say in the mid-years of the administration of the late Gov. John A. Burns, when the power rested directly and unmistakably in the hands of the executive. Hawai'i had a largely compliant Legislature and a judiciary that was openly committed to the broad goals and ideals of the Burns administration.

No apologies were made for making sure the courts were lined up with the general policy and political perspectives of the Legislature and executive.

That's changed over the years. It is tougher to find a clear line of policy that binds the three branches, and perhaps that is how it should be.

But in a couple of cases, there are signs that the state Supreme Court has little patience with the current administration and its leader, Linda Lingle, although Chief Justice Ron Moon is nominally a Republican and Lingle has one of her own appointees on the bench, Justice James Duffy.

Before she leaves office, Lingle will likely have an opportunity to appoint a chief justice, when Moon retires. Based on the influence that previous chief justices have had on the personality and performance of the court, that will be an extremely important appointment.

But in the meantime, the court has not been easy on Lingle and her administration.

Most recently, the high court indicated it would entertain a motion from environmentalists who claim Lingle (with the somewhat grudging acquiescence of the Legislature) violated the state Constitution by allowing operations of Hawaii Superferry to proceed before the completion of an environmental review. The court already sided with the environmentalists once on this matter, which led the Legislature to come back in special session to enact a law that allowed the ferry Alakai to resume operations while environmental reviews continued.

That's what the environmentalists are complaining about now, and the court has said it is willing to hear their arguments.

More striking was the court's swift decision that Lingle violated the law and Constitution when she maintained a number of her appointees to the University of Hawai'i Board of Regents rather that choosing new people from a constitutionally mandated advisory council.

This was directly a dispute between Democrats in the Legislature and Lingle, and the court left no question about where it stood.

At this point, Lingle has left little political legacy within the Legislature or other corridors of political power. It will be interesting to see if she can reverse the current trend and leave behind a judiciary more sympathetic to her thinking than the present court has been.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.