Half-year down, month to go before the high court appeal

  • Article
  • Updated: May 2, 2009 - 9:43 PM
  • 18
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
sfccarrierMay. 3, 09 7:02 AM

Did anyone see the CBS report on how many Minnesotans cannot have their problems addressed when they need a senator because Amy cannot possibly cover the overload? Let's face it, the governor does not give a damn! Don't forget that the 4400 cherry-picked (by Ben Ginsberg of Bush-Gore fame) ballots out of the uncounted 11,000 absentee ballots that Norm Coleman wants counted have been ruled in every stage of the process to be "illegal" under Minnesota law. Would an election theft after the six months of hard work by the citizens and courts of Minnesota actually describe this appeal? It will be throwing the 3 million votes of Minnesotans in the trash can and replacing them with 4400 illegal absentee ballots. That is preposterous!! There is no demand by Coleman to count all 11,000 illegal ballots because Al Franken won the 1300 that were counted by 60% to 40% and would win by 2500 votes under that scenario. Why is this obvious fact not mentioned by the Star Tribune? If the Minnesota Supreme Court does not buy that argument, Coleman is going to the U.S. Supreme Court to try and get the same 5-4 decision that Bush got in 2000. Too, bad, you 3 million voters! Pawlenty only cares about the GOP and his presidential aspirations!

oldgeekMay. 3, 0910:10 AM

I cannot fault Coleman for going through the Minnesota court system. If the state supreme court says Coleman's court case has no merit then he should have the dignity and good sense to give up. If Coleman pushes this to the Supreme Court and Pawlenty sit back and endorses that approach, no reasonable person would have any respect for either. Pushing this dead horse to the supreme court just makes the GOP look like a ship of fools.

rmartell5May. 3, 0911:31 AM

Coleman's brief argues that the trial judges did not receive some evidence and refused to hear the testimony of one witness. The statute says that the trial judges "must" receive such evidence and send it to the Senate. So, the Mn. Sup. Crt could remand the case to have the judges receive the evidence that was excluded. The Mn. Sup Crt could also remand with instructions to open certain types of ballot envelopes, such as those where the witness did not include a proper address. It is unlikely that the Mn. Sup Crt would tell the judges to open and count 4,400 improper ballots. The Mn. Sup Crt could rule that the "equal protection" arguments are for the US Senate to resolve, not the courts. Coleman's brief does not challange any of the factual findings of the trial judges, which should severely limit the relief he can receive. From the Mn. Sup Crt Coleman could petition the US Sup Crt to take the case and decide the "equal protection" arguments. Bbut even so, the Senate is the only body that could order a new election. There does not seem to be anything the US Sup Crt can do to give Coleman any relief. While in theory Coleman (or some other person) could start a lawsuit in US District Court, that suit would be untimely as an "election contest." If it is not an "election contest" such a case would not hold up the certificate of election. The US District Court would be very limited in what it could do because of the findings of the trial judges and whatever action the Mn. Sup Crt takes. The US Courts must defer to the Mn. Sup Crt on all questions of Minnesota law.

lvpops53May. 3, 09 1:06 PM

I also cannot fault Norm for wanting to appeal. However since he has lost his initial suit, Al should be seated as the second Senator from Minnesota. If it turns out that through his appeals that Norm wins out,and is shown to be the legal winner, then Al should be replaced. But until all this happens, Al has won. Our Constitution calls for two Senators from each State. The republicans of Minnesota are circumventing the Constitution by not seating the winner, Al Franken. And I thought the republicans were so patriotic. They sure claim to be!

rick24rick24May. 3, 09 6:47 PM

on whom the next senator is, the length of the term should start from the first day they are officially in office. Therefore, Al's term would run until the summer of 2015 and Norm's term would run until January of 2009.

poliproleMay. 3, 09 6:53 PM

Any time in the last six months and certainly (at the very least ) since the three judge panel ruled that Mr. Franken was "entitled to receive the election certificate" Gov. Pawlenty could have signed the election certificate and sent Mr. Franken to the senate. At this point Gov. Pawlenty appears to be holding up the seating of a legally elected US Senator for personal political gain (at the expense of the citizens of MN). This action by Gov. Pawlenty should be investigated by the MN house ethics committee and be investigated for possible impeachment proceedings. Remember , this could be over RIGHT NOW !

likeitisMay. 3, 09 7:51 PM

Again I say the tragedy of all this is that while the Repubs obstruct innocent people die. Especially helpless children. How can one call oneself Christian and hope to be on Jesus' side while refusing to pay taxes to protect our children among other things??!! How can one consider one grown up if you lose two elections cycles by a longshot and still won't get out of the way so progress can happen. It doesn't jive up with my meticulous reading of the Bible!!! The GOP just doesn't have anything to recommend itself. Drawing this out just proves they are completely lacking in compassion and Christian morals. And patriotism for that matter. Haven't they done enough to hurt the country? Haven't they killed enough people with their policies??!! Why must they be completely obliterated politically before the'll go away and savor the misery they've spread and let the patriotic and the talented make amends??!! The question is rhetorical.

likeitisMay. 3, 09 7:57 PM

And while the MN House ethics comittee is at it, the could look into who swiped the 133 ballots from a pro-Franken precinct, and also why the election night count was off by more than 500 votes. It seems obvious to me who was trying to steal this thing and it isn't the Democrats. Minnesota needs a new governor. Groom someone DFL!

hobie2May. 3, 09 9:55 PM

Once the MN Supreme Court says the recount lawsuit managed by their own members was done as well as humanly reasonable, it is Franken, period. (1) If the US Supreme Court says it's none of their business, game over - Franken. (2) If the USSC says Coleman was wronged, the 59 Democrats in the Senate majority will say that per the Constitution, it is a State and Senate matter and this is none of the USSC's business and USSC, go stuff your decision. And they vote 59-40 Franken. Game over - Franken. And, the USSC, knowing that any outcome the concoct for Coleman will be overidden by the Senate Dems anyway, half of the USSC being political ideogogues, will decline in order to not be embarrased or be seen as true Repub shills. Game over - Franken And Franken gets seated even if Pawlenty doesn't sign the certificate (which I will bet he won't sign, being a loyal RNC lap-doggie, not signing in order to force the Senate to use more time voting) No scenario ever seats Coleman. And remember that the USSC does NOT get to tell the Senate body what to do. Ever. Period. The Senate tries the Justices, not the other way around.

barbreaderMay. 3, 0911:07 PM

You are forgetting that the right wing wins when the government looks foolish, even if it's their own doing. I believe this will drag on for a long time. The Minn. Supreme court may rule for Coleman, but even if the ballots are counted, there is a better than even chance it's Franken's race. OK, now, whether he wins the court case or not, he will appeal to the Federal District Court. That will take months, and appeals to the US Court of Appeals will take more months, and the USSC probably then takes it. If they decide for Coleman, all they have to do is throw out the recount and say only the machine count is good. And if that makes the court look political, the right wing will then just use it to prove how bad government is. But this is not 1826, and the US Senate isn't Andrew Jackson. I don't believe the Senate will overturn a USSC decision. Because if the Democrats do that, they acknowledge that Government doesn't work. And that's bad for them.


Comment on this story   |  


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