Court skeptical of Norm Coleman's arguments

Source: Politico

Republican Norm Coleman’s legal team on Monday faced a skeptical audience of five Minnesota Supreme Court justices, who could be his last lifeline to prevent Democrat Al Franken from being seated as the state’s junior senator.

During the one-hour proceeding, the five justices peppered Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg with pointed questions on whether the campaign had provided enough evidence to prove that Coleman would have won the election if additional absentee ballots were included.

Justice Christopher Dietzen, an appointee of Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty who is considered to be the court’s most conservative judge, said during the hearing that Coleman’s argument was filled with “legal theory” but had “no concrete evidence to back it up.”

“If this isn’t a 5-0 opinion for Franken, I would be totally surprised. You got the sense that the justices were very unpersuaded by the Coleman arguments,” University of Minnesota law professor David Schultz said. “What were saying is Coleman didn’t provide the sufficient evidence to either overturn the lower court decision, or sufficient evidence to show why the additional ballots should be introduced.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23197.html

Are they waiting for Coleman's corruption trial to begin before poor Minnesotans get their second Senator?

They don't want it to look political.

I was worried when I saw a few of the justices had donated to Coleman. But I think Dietzen was one of them, and he did not seem impressed by the legal arguments.

that causes them to transcend politics.

This opinion is likely to be cited whenever Bush v. Gore is cited. I do not believe that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ever had a chance of this magnitude to make legal history. These Justices do not want their names to go down in history as being backwater partisan hacks. Not for their party, not for anyone. Their respective reputations and legacies hang in the balance. They are going to do what they think the law requires them to do, not decide along party lines. JMO

If I am wrong, we are screwn, though, because my recollection is that 0 or 1 was appointed by a Democrat. On the other hand, Ventura has come out on the side of Frenken in this, so his appointees may feel the same as he does.

It was sickening to see the Rethugs storming the polls with weapons, to make sure that votes were not counted. All of this orchestrated by James Baker. They should have been jailed. If they were Democrats they would have been. Remember the beatings and incarcerations at the Republican National Convention last year? This was proof that we are a police state. Now we are a ONE PARTY system with two arms. It is the Corporate Party. We have to take money out of elections and politics or there is no hope for America.

There was one question asked of Friedberg that I thought lost the case for him. He was asked if we are to believe that everyone who voted or counted the ballots had good intentions & did their best to do as good a job as possible or are we to believe there were some with bad intentions. Friedberg's response was a very forceful "ABSOLUTELY YOUR HONOR! There was absolutely no fraud of any kind!" I realize there was never any accusation of fraud, but with the forcefulness of his response, as soon as I heard him, I said "You just LOST!"

"bad intentions" matter, if there was no fraud? Conversely, what the hell do "good intentions" matter if there was fraud? I think that is what Friedberg was reacting to.

Illegal as hell, but they sure made it go away quickly. Interesting how the judge was too polite to press the issue. However, judging by the attorney's response, I guess a strong hint was sufficient. Had the judge(s) actually laughed at Coleman's attorneys, even I would have downloaded the YouTube video for my permanent collection.

WTF does a Republican have to do to get arrested in this country? It's a wonder we all don't change our registration just for the obvious perks of (R) membership. Granted, most of us wouldn't actually steal, murder or rape, but it would be nice to have that "Get Out of Jail Free" card for things like speeding and the occasional "youthful indiscretion" they seem to commit well into middle age.

obtain the evidence and they reverted to dirty politics - they gave up and went for the delay in seating Franken. They desparately wanted Coleman in the Senate because he is a lap dog, but there was no money. And they have pay legal fees for Franken's lawyers if they lose. Just supposition.

Then, it's on to the President wannabe Pawlenty for certification. Not done yet.

Coleman IS a lap dog. Remember, he was all but hand-picked by bushco. to fight the late great Paul Wellstone for the Senate. We all know how that ended :(

For the sake of Minnesota and the USA, may Coleman and his buddy Pawlenty swiftly be booted from politics. Coleman is a worm, Pawlenty is roach---they are wriggling crawling pests and they should be returned to the mud and garabge they love so much!:hurts:

And you certainly know how to characterize those two jerks perfectly.

That suggests that there is evidence in the first place. Manufacture would be a better word choice.

Pawlenty is sunk either way. This election and the budget scorched earth decisions he has made will kill his bid for national election.

I suspect he will certify and hope that he can look like a dignified rule-of-law governor to get reelected again. If he refuses to certify it will be to appeal to the hard right republican base.

did raise it.

It'll take two dozen Frankens to overcome the corporate Obama we've seen thus far.

What an odd view given the intensive scrutiny and enforced transparency of the recount by Minnesota election officials. Have you been following this, or are you just making wild assumptions?

fraud in the election. Colemans' lawyer was asked and emphatically, declaratively said they are not claiming fraud. It's time for Republicans to stop saying there was fraud. I don't know what I said that made you ask that question.

You said Coleman's camp simply didn't have the money to uncover fraud. Now you're asking me what made me ask that?!!

The longer they delay, the more it will seem to people who haven't followed the case closely that it was somehow tainted. it will also serve to rally the base against Franken in fundraising In 5 years, when Franken is up for re-election, outsiders will only remember the court case and the fact it took 6+ months to seat Franken... it will make it seem somehow tainted, even with a 5-0 decision.

The Justices may have been having fun with Joe Friedberg since he isn't familiar with election law like Franken's lawyer is.

in that hearinf yesterday which one knew what he was talking about and which one was just blowing smoke. Friedberg also was litterally yelling at the judge at one point, which is NEVER a good idea!

even wanted the case to begin with.

Each House shall be the JUDGE of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.


There is one out come no one is expecting from the Minn. Supreme Court. Don't be surprized if you see it. The Minn. Supreme Court could rule that the lower courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case. It has to go before the Senate to be decided. Not the Judiciary.

They may get thrown out without a hearing, but it could delay Franken's seating until 2010.

And at this point, "delay" is probably all the Repubs can hope for.

Then they're off to the Senate to have the election and returns judged in accordance to Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution.

"Normy and his cabal of whiney Republicon Homelanders should just shut up and sit down, for he has been voted OUT and regurgitated by honest Americans participating in honest democracy -- something Republicons just don't respct.."

- Da Judges

because the RNC is so irrelevant they have nothing left, but to drag this to the highest court in the land. Then when that is decided in Franken's...favor...oh wait, the SCOTUS already has a history of deciding with the Repukes. Hmmm...so even if Franken wins there, Pawlenty will drag his feet it sounds like and then we'll start all over again. When is Pawlenty's term up?

Yes this is a state matter and not a federal one. But we are not dealing with reasonable people but the warped minds of the Republican Party where they will steal an election anyway they can. BushVGore was NOT a federal issue but they had enough pull with certain justices to ensure they'd get their case heard before the SCOTUS. Some of those same cronies (I'm looking at you Scalia and Thomas) are still around and still doing favors for the RNC.

Alito and Roberts will probably go along with this madness. I've not heard anyone saying this wouldn't go to the SCOTUS. That amazes me people would think that. Lots of things amaze me though. The RNC will stop at nothing to try to make themselves relevant and throw wrenches into the works at every turn.

TPM and Eric Kleefeld have done a great job covering all things Coleman & Franken.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/mn-sen/

Sid

n/t

legal experts expect a final ruling in the next few weeks...The court could also send the case back to the lower court to adopt a more-lenient standard in including absentee votes – a position the Coleman camp has been asking for. Coleman’s legal team has argued that the lower court erred when it ruled that thousands of uncounted absentee ballots were inadmissible in the final count.

From Time.com

Ben Ginsberg, a lawyer for Coleman who also represented George W. Bush in the 2000 Florida recount, tells TIME. "Whether or not a voter's vote counts shouldn't depend on where they live."

Funny I don't remember him making that argument in 2000.

"Our ability to overturn this flawed recount process — and preserve checks and balances against the near total control of our government by Obama and the Democrats — rests in your hands."

Please rescue us from the democrats..is that not the lamest most biased statement to make in front of a supreme court justice?
Good Lord. That's not their job and he's an embarrassment to his party and himself.

Some GOP Senators, including Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, have encouraged Coleman to push ahead no matter what the decision

I haven't heard of voters complaining about being disenfranchised the way they were in Florida. Voters with no record suddenly found themselves on the felon list. Ballots that are late or unsigned is not disenfranchisment..just voting error. What is their argument here?

he had the choice of working on the re-election campaign of a "President" at a TIME OF WAR or to work for the Swiftboaters

he picked the Swiftboaters
of course he really was still working on the campaign

they got caught redhanded and nothing came of it

the one that seemed to get most of the attention was the WND Jerome Corsi. Funny we didn't hear from them this time. Ginsberg has friends in high places.

Controversy

Swift Boat-Bush Conflict of Interest

Ginsberg was chief outside counsel to both the 2000 and 2004 Bush-Cheney campaigns. He resigned in August 2004 <2> from the campaign when the media publicized the fact that he was simultaneously representing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who were attacking Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). <3>

In his resignation letter to President Bush he wrote "I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing." <4> <5>

In February 2004 Ginsburg had told the Associated Press that it "would be irresponsible for an attorney to counsel a 527 group"—such as the Swift Boat Vets for Truth—"that it could spend soft money on messages the FEC has historically considered federal election activity, or that mentions the name of a federal candidate, without putting the group and their donors at considerable risk." <6>

However, on May 17, 2004, Roll Call reported that "Republican activists" Craig Shirley, Frank Donatelli and George Terwilliger were meeting "to determine the best way for the GOP to run a shadow campaign countering the well-oiled effort that Democrats" had begun in 2003 and other "pro-Republican groups" would begin discussions later that week. Ginsberg, then "national counsel to the Bush-Cheney campaign," was to "help advise the group or groups."

Donatelli's Donatelli Group, which produced the RNC's website, also registered and produced the Swift Boat Vets website.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benjamin_Ginsberg

I guess the risk was worth it..I would say the Swifters were successful. I'm sure he was well paid for his services. Ethics is the first casualty of politics it would seem.

AFAIK, I see NOTHING in the Constitution if the US (or any state Constitution I am even remotely aware of) that "preserves checks and balances" between competing political parties. Such a statement is fatuous and ignorant at best and a blatantly obvious and pathetic attempt to appeal to the political inclinations of the judges at worst.

But here's the thing that really makes me irritable...



Your memory does serve you well, he did not make that argument in 2000. Problem is, it wasn't his job to make it. Dem lawyers could have easily pressed that argument. They did not. Even if they did not succeed in the argument, it would have made the one serious point that would have cast a definitive shadow over the legitimacy of the Bush presidency that would be too obvious to ignore. It would have cast a pall over the Supreme Court "decision" as well as the gamut of administrative "decisions" that were clearly and obviously biased against Gore in Florida. Maybe then, we wouldn't have had the "result" in 2004 and could have been spared 4 extra years.

Attorney David Boies made some thoughtful and sound arguments about what was happening. They pointed to then Governor Bush who signed a law that called for recounts in disputed elections that were as close as the 2000 election. Then comes Katherine Harris.
She changed everything. Baker took it to the SCOTUS and they overturned the Florida court. But there were so many thugs threatening the certification boards during the Palm Beach recount. It was a horrible time here during that fiasco. But you're right..the court deciding who won because a "time" period was running out will always cast doubt on the election. We were told to "get over it."

If Tim holds out any longer signing the petition he'll be booted out as governor (and btw if he ignores the court order to sign the petition he could be easily impeached by the DFL strong MN Congress). If he signs the certificate then he'll be out the outskirts of the Republican party and a chance to run for President in 2012 because he caved-in and gave Franken the seat.

Right now Pawlenty is praying that the MNSSC orders him to sign the certificate so he can say he had no choice. His ratings in MN are tanking and needs a way to get out of this mess.

"... Coleman would have won the election if additional absentee ballots were included."



Question: Why were these ballots NOT included? Am I misunderstanding the situation?

I've seen ballots that voters have written "I'll vote for the white guy" or "I'll vote for the right to life candidate" when they needed to "check" a box next to the candidates name..

depending on the county.

Like whether or not to accept an absentee ballot from a non-registered voter.

I looked for a list of the "seventeen to nineteen reasons" to exclude a ballot but didn't find one.

It would be interesting to see the reasons and the differences across counties.

...and not the absentee ballots that are presently a point of contention.

On election night, the scanning machines naturally could not discern the intent of the voters who wrote smartass comments instead of filling in the little oval next to their candidate's name. During the recount, election judges were required by state law to review every one of those ballots, and do their best to discern the voter's intent.

At issue before the MN Supreme Court today is Coleman's request that as many as 4,400 absentee ballots that did not meet legal criteria should be counted anyway. As I explain in a post below, those are the 4,400 that Coleman is pretty sure are for him. There are another 6,000 or so improperly submitted absentee ballots that he'd just as soon forget about.

Minnesota law establishes four clear, concise criteria for absentee ballots. The ballots Norm wants counted did not meet some or all of those criteria. For example, the prospective absentee voter may have neglected to have a registered voter sign as a witness.

About 11,000 absentee ballots were rejected. Norm wants 4,400 of those to be counted anyway, on the grounds of anecdotal testimony that some precincts may have counted similarly deficient ballots. But it's vital to Norm's quest that only those 4,400 cherry-picked ballots get counted. If all 11,000 rejected absentee ballots got counted, they would probably break 6 to 4 in favor of Franken, just as the 100,000 or so properly-submitted absentee ballots did.

Both camps have pretty much known from the get-go what's inside the still-sealed envelopes of those rejected absentee ballots. The voter's name and address are right there on the outside. To find out what's inside, check to see what political contributions the voter has made. Failing that, just contact the voters and ask them. Both sides have already done just that.

Again, let me emphasize: to win this one, Coleman not only has to get the court to agree to count the 4,400 improperly-submitted absentee ballots that he knows are for him, he also has to prevent most of the other improperly-cast absentee ballots from being counted.

5-0 for Franken (according to a former MN Supreme Court justice who was a colleague of the current ones, they decided the case yesterday and need to write their opinions) and the experts also agree that SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case--paranoid DUers notwithstanding.

I read far too many posts here from people who are both uninformed and ignorant about both the MN election process and its judicial system. There are probably just as many here who have believed that the MN Supreme Court will give it to Coleman and are equally convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court will do the same. I would like to remind those who are convinced that every Republican judge is in on the conspiracy to keep Franken from being seated that the Republican judge on the 3 judge panel that previously heard this case and ruled for Franken voted with the Democrat and the independent in every instance and all of their rulings were unanimous.

From there, the remaining questions are:

Will Governor Pawlenty issue the election certificate, as Minnesota law demands? (A month or two ago, I would have said no way would he withhold the certificate. But ever since he seized upon a dubious legal maneuver to allow himself to disregard the state legislature and personally write the state's budget, I'm no longer so sure. He seems to regard himself as what the Bush gang called "the Unitary Executive".)

Will Harry Reid move to seat Franken once armed with an election certificate? You would sure think so. But sometimes we hafta kinda wonder about Harry. And what will he do if Pawlenty commits the travesty of withholding the certificate? Will he do what's right, the minority's threats of "World War III" be damned?

If the SCOTUS declines to hear the case, as well they should, how long will it take them to decline? I believe they won't re-convene until summer's end. Would the Senate minority point to Coleman's pending request to be heard as a justification for filibuster?

No matter what the answers to these questions are, things are bound to be interesting. And ultimately, I think the Democratic party will benefit from any Republican shenanigans.

:popcorn:

:kick: