The S.C. Supreme Court has done all citizens a favor by reining in the General Assembly's sloppy methods of lawmaking.

The high court sided with a citizen watchdog who challenged the legality of tacking new and different policy onto an unrelated bill -- an old practice known as "bobtailing."

The ruling had a wide impact because the bill involved was so bloated. The Life Science Act passed last year was the poster child for bad lawmaking. A bill that started out to be a boost to universities and entrepreneurs, and thereby an economy based on intellectual capital, was quickly weighed down by legislators. The final product was called the "kitchen sink bill" because everything was thrown into it.

Give Gov. Mark Sanford credit for challenging the bill. He took significant heat from the Republican leadership in the legislature for daring to state the obvious. Sanford said the courts needed to intervene, and he was right.

The Supreme Court threw out much that had been tossed into the "kitchen sink." Gone are several high-profile add-ons: a proposal for USC-Sumter to offer four-year degrees, a culinary school in Charleston, and a convention and trade center in Myrtle Beach. Also gone is a requirement for legislative approval before college campuses could be closed. Changes in the eligibility requirements for the state's LIFE scholarships also were axed.

The state constitution requires that each bill deal with a single subject. The constitution addresses the problem of undebated, unpublicized items becoming law without public knowledge or input. We have seen that happen when a "minor" change was made deep within a budget bill that opened the door to video poker in South Carolina.

But there is another basic problem with "bobtailing." It enables major changes in public policy that might never pass on their own merits.

Each of the 15 add-ons to the Life Science Act should have gone through the full process -- and hopefully the debate and compromise -- of a stand-alone piece of legislation.

Lawmakers may be cagey and practical when they add something they want onto a bill likely to pass, but it is a foolish way to formulate public policy. This bill turned USC-Sumter into a four-year institution despite objections of the university board, the Commission on Higher Education and the governor. That type of change should be voted on by itself, not as a dubious portion of a popular bill.

Legislators should not make law that way, and it's encouraging to see that both a concerned private citizen and the Supreme Court can see that. The public must now hope legislators see it as well.