Coleman lawyers blast judges

  • Article by: PAT DOYLE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 19, 2009 - 11:43 AM

After two adverse rulings, Coleman team says panel has created a "legal quagmire."

  • 381
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
TeiresiasFeb. 18, 0910:07 AM

Coleman: Count only ballots cast for me. LOL!

lrtfan1Feb. 18, 0910:09 AM

Cha Ching, Cha Ching. Time for another fundraiser to pay for the attorney fees. Let's keep this going guys and gals. Joe and Ginsburg need more billables. Another 20-30 days of this and the bottom lines at the firm will be looking really good.

tanstaafl13Feb. 18, 0910:09 AM

Well here's Mr. Coleman's en'tre to the Federal Court.

riversonFeb. 18, 0910:21 AM

The Minnesota Senate trial judges should finishing shutting the last doors on Coleman's lawyer team. Time to move on to the next court level, as Coleman will likely do, to keep our Senate seat vacant. Time for the Minnesota Supreme Court to rule quickly on Coleman's claims and shut that door also. Then the Senate should seat Franken. If the GOP wants to go the US Supreme Court, they dare not repeat their 2000 gift to GW Bush.

omzes1Feb. 18, 0910:28 AM

My good Republican friends, and there are many, are expressing heated anger and frustation at the destructive approach employed by "Swiftboat Ben Ginsberg" and company. Just a hired gun, he certainly shows no concern about Minnesota; only the stalling and delaying tactics that negatively impact our state. The one real positive aspect of this miscarriage is that it begins to shine a light on Pawlenty. Even his smooth double talking won'tsave him-opposes the stimulus but want's the $ Wonder if Joe Friedberg is making a fool of himself at the favor of the Dorsey law firm. They contract him a lot of their criminal work. C'mon Joe, if you need the money sell a horse. There's a lot going for the Colemanites beneath the surface. hopefully like any dead fish it will eventually rise and float.

carlsonFeb. 18, 0910:32 AM

He claims that this contest is not about him, but rather reflects his concern that voters are not disenfranchised. However, by voting with Bush almost 100% of the time, he spent his entire first term disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters who did not vote for him. He didn't seem to care then, so why would he care now? He only wants votes counted now so he can weasel his way back into office and continue disenfranchising half the voting populace for another several years.

vapor15Feb. 18, 0910:32 AM

One the contest is concluded Franken can get his certificate right? I don't believe the law says anything about having to wait for appeals.

jeffreyhenryFeb. 18, 0910:55 AM

What is Coleman's address? We should start organizing to picket at his home. This has got to stop

fauxnewsFeb. 18, 0911:01 AM

and I can scrape the last bit of Coleman off the bottom of my boots. Man up, Normie, quit it!

gkrevquestFeb. 18, 0911:04 AM

First of all, as has already been said, the Supreme Court will likely not wish to repeat their unconstitutional miscarriage of justice in Bush v. Gore. Second, the Coleman campaign has yet to prove in this election contest that anyone has actually been disenfranchised. That term describes people who should have been allowed to vote or whose votes should have been counted under Minnesota state statutes at the time of the election, but were not. In yesterday's argument about at least one county not checking witness signatures to be sure they were registered voters, although it's possible some voters had their votes counted when they should not have been in that county, the county that DID check signatures, whose strict adherence to state law the Coleman side was trying to cancel out, did not disenfranchise anyone whose vote SHOULD have been counted. Their checking of those signatures was legal and correct. The only basis for an "equal protection" argument would be if voters who followed the rules had their votes disallowed in some locations but not in others. The seeming fact that some voters did not follow the rules but were counted anyway (in error), is no grounds for an equal protection claim (if it were, then the result would be that no rules can be applied to the voting process at all).


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters