People of Minnesota, when is enough enough? Please tell Cornyn to butt out of your business!

If Harry Reid had a pair, the Dems would be flogging this until the Repugs are shamed into standing down. But Senator Mouse is so weak that he's almost invisible and the GOP is getting a very nice free ride. Pathetic.

shame the republicans into standing down? lmao. if they had any sense of shame they wouldn't be republicans.

How is it legal for citizens to go "years" without proper representation?

As a Minnesotan, I am hoping that, once the court declares Franken the winner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will move on the US Senate's prerogative to seat Franken. JS, I wish we could tell agenda-laden Republicans such as Cornyn to STFU, but we can't realistically do that. Once the court provides the opening, Dems have to ram this one through. This show trial has gone on long enough, and we need representation to further our President's agenda.

The real reason why this is not an issue in MN is that we never see it on our news broadcast or near the front page of the papers. I have to search sites like this one to find any news of how the recount is proceeding.

It's NOT the Minnesota Supreme Court's case right now. It is in the TRIAL COURT. The Minnesota Supremes will hear a direct appeal (ie, an appeal that bypasses the appeals court and is mandatory as opposed to optional as most high court review is) I believe, however.

As to filing a separate action in federal district court, that's a tricky issue: If Norm CAN raise the federal issues in a state forum, he waives his right to raise them in federal court (for those with passing familiarity with federal jurisdiction, don't argue with me, I am right -- habeas cases are different). And Norm IS raising federal issues now, eg equal protection. His federal review is in the Supreme Court of the United States, which has the power to take appeals from state courts when there are federal issues involved (obviously, it does not have to, and usually doesn't).

Thus, if I get sued in state court for something, and I argue that the verdict violates federal equal protection principles, I need to raise that in the state suit. I cannot bring a separate suit in the federal courts. If I lose in state court, I can petition the Supreme Court of the US for cert -- then after the Supremes deny cert, I am done. I cannot relitigate the issue. And even if I did not raise the issue in state court -- if I COULD have done so, I am still done. This is the entire premise of our dual court system.

What I don't get is Coleman's desire to base his appeal on Bush v Gore. The Supreme Court made it clear that their ruling did not establish legal precedent. So how can it be used as a basis for appeal? To me, it seems Coleman's argument is even more legally dubious than the original Bush v Gore ruling. Of course, that doesn't mean the strategy will fail. There are probably five votes on the Supreme Court for any dubious ruling that would help the Republicans. And in this case, delay alone is success.

"What I cannot understand is why Coleman has taken such little heat for prolonging what by all accounts appears to be a losing battle"

Because, so far at least, the election contest is well within Coleman's rights under the laws of Minnesota. Those laws have proven to be a model for fair and transparent elections, even elections that are this close, so they should not be dismissed lightly.

Now, assuming the ECC rules that there are further ballots to count, and the SoS's office counts them and declares Franken the winner (the most likely outcome, IMO), those laws allow an appeal to the MN SC. No one should be complaining about this, no matter how inconvenient it might be for the Democrats.

Assuming the appeal is resolved in Franken's favor, THEN it will be time for Gov. Pawlenty to sign the certificate. SCOTUS has no proper role here, and if I believed in the integrity of SCOTUS and their ability to read the Constitution (specifically Article 1, Section 5), they will refuse cert.

If Pawlenty refuses to sign after the MN SC ruling, I would expect Franken to go to the MN SC and have them order Pawlenty's signature.

THEN things might get interesting with Cornyn, and THEN Democrats will have a cause to complain, loudly and often.

Ian Milhiser at Overruled Blog has an interesting strategy for Franken - AGREE to let the Supreme Court hear Coleman's appeal in an effort to fast-track the case

It's actually not a very well-informed post. The Supreme Court of the US does not take cases just because another party "agrees" it should. That's just not how it works. And there is no "fast-track" system at the Supreme Court -- they sometimes hear things on an expedited basis (eg Bush v. Gore), but that is extremely rare. Furthermore, see my post above about federal jurisdiction -- if the US SUpreme Court decides not to take the case, it is effectively over for Norm. He has no non-frivolous arguments to make in a federal district court, and his case will likely be dismissed pretty quickly.

Because, so far at least, the election contest is well within Coleman's rights under the laws of Minnesota. Those laws have proven to be a model for fair and transparent elections, even elections that are this close, so they should not be dismissed lightly.

Yes, but the one flaw is what Minnesota is suffering through presently: because the Secretary of State is unable to issue even a preliminary writ of election, Franken is unable to take his seat, and Minnesota is lacking full representation in the Senate. Contrast to Louisiana, where after her first run for the Senate, Mary Landrieu was seated "without prejudice" until the appeals were decided.

Actually, the best thing for Democrats is if Pawlenty certifies the election because of political heat in Minnesota. It would force the GOP to block the seating of Franken. At that moment the Dem leadership can just say that no Federal judge will force them to seat Coleman.

As a Minnesotan, I am equally interested in why the fact that Norm Coleman is grappling with ethical/legal issues concerning donations that may or may not be ethical/legal isn't under more scrutiny. Basically, he is alleged to have done similar things to what Governor Blagojevich of Illinois did, and yet, there is nary a peep about in when the recount is discussed.

What happened to healing the state, Norm? I am not happy with the fact that Minnesota is being shorted a senator. Not happy at all.

So much for Republicans always insisting on "States Rights" and the Federal Government having to stay out of State's business.

That is of course, until they think a Federal law is more convenient to their case.

In this case, I think they're barking up the wrong tree. It would not surprise me that Pawlenty will certify Franken.

If Pawlenty wants to run for president, he'll need the votes from independents as well as some Democrats to win. Playing partisan politics for Coleman would not endear him to those voters.

Sure if he sides with the law and gives the certificate to Franken, republicans will be mad at him. What are the republicans going to do if Pawlenty happens to win the nomination to be their candidate? Not vote? Yeah Right. Kind'a like nobody was going to vote for MCCain either. Republicans, unlike Democrats, tend to fall in line and vote for the party regardless of who's on the ticket.

So.. Pawlenty will do the 'right' thing for his career and go along with Franken being the Senator.

Yes, but the one flaw is what Minnesota is suffering through presently: because the Secretary of State is unable to issue even a preliminary writ of election, Franken is unable to take his seat

Well, fine, then change the law. But no one should criticize Coleman for actions that are clearly within his rights to take.

The same answer applies to those calling for a run-off or do-over. It's not the law. If you think it should be, then change it. The law is what it is, not what you might wish it to be.

It will be interesting to see what Pawlenty does if it's put before him. If he deprives his state of Senate representation for transparently partisan reasons, that could come back to hurt him if he runs for re-election in 2010.

If the Republicans want a fight, give it to them. It's one more opportunity to portray their party as nothing but unreasonable, unprincipled obstructionists. You can also accuse them of trying to undermine the will of the voters (again).

If they complain, offer them "the same advice they gave to Democrats in 2000 - get over it".

I respond to Jon's claim that my post over at Overruled is not "well-informed" in the my own comment thread here:

http://overruledblog.com/2009/03/30/a-high-risk-stategy-to-bypass-john-cornyn/#comments

The short version is that, while Jon is correct that the parties cannot "agree" to hear a case---the Justices pick their own cases except in a few rare instances---the Justices do actually heed what the parties have to say in the documents submitted to them. If Franken asks the Justices to hear the case, that will increase the likelihood that they will do so.

Yes, but the one flaw is what Minnesota is suffering through presently: because the Secretary of State is unable to issue even a preliminary writ of election, Franken is unable to take his seat

Well, fine, then change the law. But no one should criticize Coleman for actions that are clearly within his rights to take.

I call BS. Just because the law was badly written and didn't account for craven political machinations and a largely unlimited, and donated, legal budget, doesn't mean we can't call Coleman out on his antics.

The simple fact of the matter is Coleman lost, everyone knows it. This is a State matter and not something the Federal courts have any business getting involved in, and quite frankly other than going through the motions it's already a done deal. Franken is our Senator and if the GOP, Coleman, or Pawlenty think we're going to accept anything but his seating they're making a grave electoral mistake.

fostert on March 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM wrote:

"What I don't get is Coleman's desire to base his appeal on Bush v Gore. The Supreme Court made it clear that their ruling did not establish legal precedent. So how can it be used as a basis for appeal?" ....

I have been wondering the same thing.

Dustin - "Call BS?" Following the law is "BS"? It is likely Franken got more votes, but the state of MN is using careful procedures to prove that that is so. Election winners NEED credibility. In close elections, it is crucial to demonstrate the utmost care and fairness in order to win that credibility.

Not BS at all.

Remember the (in)famous US Supreme Court decision Bush v Gore? Looking at what is happening in Minnesota the brilliance of the court is now apparent. Picture the entire US held hostage to appeal after appeal, vote count after vote count for months and months. With the importance of the Presidency of the US at stake armies of lawyers would have fought for years over every single chad. The SCOTUS decision settled the question once and for all and prevented a potential catastrophe.

That's what happens when a pig like Al Franken contests an election that is within the margin of error. People with a little class bow out for the sake of an orderly election process rather than tie up the system. Compare to Nixon who conceded to Kennedy despite the realization that Sam Giancana and the Chicago machine stole the election. For people like Gore and Franken it's me over the republic.

Luther - it's obvious you haven't been paying attention, so let me clear a few things up for you:
- the recount was mandatory under MN law; Franken didn't need to ask for it
- after the recount, Franken was leading and *Coleman* contested the result.

So is it Coleman who is a "pig"?

The Democrats should put Biden in the presiding officer's seat, and on the day that the Minnesota Supreme Court rules that Coleman's appeals have been exhausted, Reid should move that the Senate immediately seat Franken, and call for an immediate vote. When the Republicans attempt to use parliamentary maneuvers to block this, Biden should rule them out of order, saying that there's no precedent for using the filibuster to block the seating of a validly elected senator. The Republicans can appeal the ruling to the full Senate, and the full Senate can then vote to back Biden up. Then they vote, and it's done.

Pawlenty cannot run for re-election as governor. He's had his two terms, and that's it. He wants to run for president or VP, which puts him between the jaws of a vise. If he doesn't certify, he's going to be mighty unpopular in Minnesota. If he does, he may not have time to live it down by the time the early decisions are made by the GOP king-makers.

...Ian Milhiser at Overruled Blog has an interesting strategy for Franken - AGREE to let the Supreme Court hear Coleman's appeal in an effort to fast-track the case.

frankly, these days i would not trust the supreme court to adjudicate any (mostly) partisan issue. i makes me sad to say this, but it's true.

your pal,
blake

Is there any Minnesota backlash against the GOP? It seems that the GOP goal is to keep Franken from being seated, not win the case on merits?

Even if Nixon won Illinois in 1960 he still didn't have enough electoral votes to win the election. Nixon would need to overturn both Illinois and Texas.

And at least one analysis I've heard is Nixon knew he got plenty of dirty votes in Republican areas of Illinois. So a detailed look at the whole state would have been ugly for both sides.

What I cannot understand is why Coleman has taken such little heat for prolonging what by all accounts appears to be a losing battle, and for nakedly political reasons besides.

Ummmmmm....liberal media?