How Much Longer? Coleman Camp Mum On Further Appeals

Maybe this is a good sign? Or, maybe not.


Coleman Camp Keeps Mum On Whether They Will Appeal
By Eric Kleefeld - June 1, 2009, 2:17PM


Earlier this morning, right after the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Norm Coleman's appeal of his defeat in the Senate election trial, the attorneys for the two sides -- and Norm himself -- briefly took questions from reporters. The question on everybody's mind: Is this finished yet?

Norm Coleman
"We've come to an obviously critical point in this process," said Coleman. "It's more than about process, it's been about the opportunity to ensure that over 4,000 Minnesotans whose votes have not been counted to have their votes counted. I don't know what it's in those ballots, but if those 4,000 voters had lived in a different area, their votes would have been counted."

Note Coleman's claim that he does not know what's in the 4,000 rejected ballots (out of about 11,000 total) that his campaign selected. No rational observer of this process would believe such a claim if it had come from either side -- both campaigns clearly engaged in a thorough process of cherry-picking, selecting ballots where they either knew for sure that it was a vote for themselves, or had a decent idea based on geography. Coleman's legal team even made a reference to geography in one of their filings.

A reporter asked Coleman whether he'll appeal to federal courts if he loses here. He's apparently going to wait and see. "Again, let's see what the court does," Coleman replied. "Let's see what the decision is. At this point my firm hope, fervent hope, is to enfranchise over 4,000 more Minnesotans."

more...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/coleman-camp-keeps-mum-on-whether-they-will-appeal.php?ref=fpb

... means the longer Minnesota isn't represented by Franken, a Democrat.

That is all they care about at this point, they knew they lost long ago.

they will kick it back to the State IMO.

the pressure on them from the republican leadership has to be heavy to take it.

It is clearly up to the Senate to determine who it seats as a senator. Unlike many other posters here, this is not simply my opinion off the top of my head but it is the opinion of the experts I heard today on MN Public Radio one of whom was a former MN SC justice. In fact, he said his former colleagues have decided the matter among themselves this afternoon and just have to write an opinion.

Remember the 3 judge panel which heard this case before it went to the MNSC? It was composed of a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent and all of their rulings were unanimous. That's right, unanimous, meaning that the Republican judge was in agreement with the other two.

one of their own. This is important enough for the republicans for them to have the SC handle it. No way they would pass up the chance.

Every expert I have heard on MN Public Radio has said that the SCOTUS will pass on the case. Again, if this was so important to the Republicans and all of them, even the judges, are totally partisan about this, why did the Republican on the 3 judge panel who heard this case vote along with the Democrat and the independent on every ruling?

republican party controls the US SC. Why would they refuse to help one of theirs with a senate seat?

I've listen to many hours of discussion about this case and none of them have said they believe that the Supreme Court will even hear the case. It's on DU that I read of the conspiracy to seat Coleman over Franken.

If they find for Franken, they will likely order the governor to issue the election certificate and Franken will be seated. Coleman can appeal to the SCOTUS if he wants, but by MN state law the election contest ends with the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling.

Furthermore, the U.S. Senate has the ultimate authority regarding who they will seat, and will be free to seat Franken once the state contest has ended.

So far, the entire process at the state level has been meticulous about dotting every i and crossing every t. There will be no compelling reason for the SCOTUS to step in.

sw

Joe Friedberg

On the question of whether to appeal, Coleman's lead attorney Joe Friedberg said: "You never, while you have a case pending in front of one court, say you're going to appeal. That's a type of attempted intimation that nobody should engage in, and I never do."

Friedberg said that the remaining ballots that should be let in are from pro-Coleman areas, due to previous lax standards in Democratic areas. "It's really strange that the counties with the resources," he said, "like Minneapolis, Ramsey County, St. Louis County, were the ones that let the ballots in, while the good old conservative Republican counties followed the rules."

Friedberg also acknowledged that the Coleman camp knew they'd lost the trial itself a while ago, and were planning for this very appeal. "Our case is in the offers of proof," he said -- referring to attempted submissions of evidence that are not accepted by the trial court, but are saved for an appeal. "The offers of proof were put in from about the 15th of February on, because from the 15th of February on we were trying the case to this court, not the trial court."

The bottom line: Friedberg wants the state Supremes to remand this case back to the trial court, with instructions to count more ballots under a substantial compliance standard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even before the trial ended, the Coleman team indicated they were going to appeal the ruling. Friedberg is a liar and has no idea what he's talking about.