Win-Win for Franken. If the judge recuses himself, it will remove a known Coleman partisan from the decision making process. If he doesn't, Franken's people will have due cause to appeal an unfavorable decision to any court they care to.

Well, the good judge is a Republican, so that sort of makes him corrupt by definition, doesn't it?

Well, the good judge is a Republican, so that guarantees his objectivity, doesn't it?

Lee,
Way to kill a strawman. Nobody said he was corrupt by definition. We are saying he needs to recuse himself. That is done all the time. Are you suggesting that any judge that recuses himself is corrupt? And that any request for a judge to recuse himself (or herself) is a suggestion that the judge is corrupt?

The problem doesn't end with Dietzen, who was also Pawlenty's campaign lawyer. Here are the other judges.

Lorie Gildea is married to a top staffer in the MN House Republican caucus.
Alan Page was also on the three man Canvassing Board, from which the first two recused themselves.

That leaves two: Meyer, appointed by Ventura, and Anderson, a Republican appointee.

Just as a thought...

Maybe we should wait and see if the MN Supreme Court appears to follow the laws in their ruling before we start hyperventilating.

DR writes:

"Are you suggesting that any judge that recuses himself is corrupt? And that any request for a judge to recuse himself (or herself) is a suggestion that the judge is corrupt?"

Not at all (to both questions). I am suggesting that this judge is a Republican judge, so the possibility that he is corrupt must be taken as a given. Bush v. Gore, remember? I do.

Danp - Page was *not* on the canvassing board. He did appoint the Election Contest Court, however.

The fact that a judge made some campaign contributions (five years ago, before he was a judge) does not fall under the usual categories requiring recusal, so the decision is up to Dietzen to decide if he can be unbiased. I think it's a close case. Even Justice O'Connor's expressed preference for Bush in 2000 wasn't enough for her to recuse herself from deciding Bush v Gore, and I doubt Dietzen will see fit to recuse himself here.

Steve, most times I appreciate your reasoned and respectful tones. This is not one of those times as we need some passion behind this message.

The right answer is "abso-fucking-lutely right that partisan judge should recuse himself. It's an outrage that he hasn't done so already."

Prediction: Dems will not squawk and this judge will not recuse himself. Someone needs to raise hell over this.

Steve: "When Judge Dietzen backed Coleman in 2004, it probably never occurred to him that he'd be asked to weigh in on Coleman's election-related lawsuit in 2009."

Conversely, Justice Dietzen's past political support of Norm Coleman might also compel him to rule against him, if only to prove his independence on the bench in the face of allegations over the apparent conflict. It's really best for everyone if he recuses himself from deliberations and decision-making.

If the judge recuses himself, it will remove a known Coleman partisan from the decision making process. If he doesn't, Franken's people will have due cause to appeal an unfavorable decision to any court they care to.

There's a slight problem with that--there is no higher court to which Franken could appeal a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Going to the US Supreme Court would be an option if the issue was a federal question--but recusal of state judges is almost certainly not a federal question.

Of course, I couldn't see a federal question in Bush v Gore, either, so what do I know?

"Alan Page was also on the three man Canvassing Board, from which the first two recused themselves."

Ralph Kramden: "Danp - Page was *not* on the canvassing board. He did appoint the Election Contest Court, however."

We should perhaps also disclose that Alan Page was a member of the Minnesota Vikings' famed "Purple People-Eater" defensive line in the early 1970s, a thought that should strike terror in the hearts of those closeted Packers and Bears fans arguing the case on Norm Coleman's behalf.

"When Judge Dietzen backed Coleman in 2004, it probably never occurred to him that he'd be asked to weigh in on Coleman's election-related lawsuit in 2009."

Sorry to be nitpicky, but don't you mean he backed Coleman in 2002, when he first ran for Senate?

I'm sure that Coleman would be happy to return the $250, which would remove the conflict of interest. In fact, he'd be happy to return $500 or more, just to be doubly sure.

I can appreciate the fact that judges are Americans, too, and they may want to participate in the electoral process, just like everyone else. That might mean voting for a candidate, and it might include financial support.

I disagree. Appointed judges should not be financing legislative campaigns.

As a Minnesotan, this issue is by necessity near and dear to my heart. Personally, in general, I think a judge can support a candidate and still be perceived as neutral in a ruling on said candidate, but in this particular case, I say no. Why? Because Norm is being investigated for accepting shady donor money as we speak. This will only add to the suspicion.

Norm needs to do what's right for his state and concede already. He said he would if he were behind!

Back to the judge--let me know when MN has its fair senatorial representation. Thanks.