StarTribune: anyone's guess on when Franken gets decision from MN Supreme Ct

Sounds like the newspaper doesn't know anything more than anyone else!

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/49047256.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU

Three weeks have passed since the Minnesota Supreme Court, in what may be the last stop in the seven-month odyssey known as the Senate recount, heard oral arguments over who won the most ballots cast so long ago, in November 2008.

Since then: silence. Except for the sound of clocks in both camps ticking as 5 p.m. approaches, when campaign staffers keep their cell phones extra close and nervously eye their e-mails in the moments before the justices go home. Then, another long day of waiting looms the following morning.

“I think everyone’s on the edge of their seat,” said Jess McIntosh, Franken’s communications director. “Al’s never too far away from the phone at any given moment because it could happen any time.”

This has crossed the line into intolerable territory. Why the hell aren't Minnesotans raising hell?

The first decision was very good, and we trust the Supreme Court too.

But maybe there will be some complaining in the reader comments on the Strib site.

Minnesotans not demanded Pawlenty seat Franken on a provisional basis?

provision for that.

I'm sick of not being fully represented in the US Senate.

There should be "provisional seating" in this kind of case - otherwise, the system just encourages lawsuits to keep someone from being seated. Of course, no one in the past has ever been slimy enough to do that. Coleman, take a bow.

waged some other act of civil disobedience months ago? Al will never be seated. Reid is too much of a coward to take a stand.

hasn't changed it yet. (MN legislature's session ended in May)

I refer you to the book "How to Talk Minnesotan". It will help you understand us better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Talk_Minnesotan

"...
However, when upset, we may shrug our shoulders and say "Whatever." Which means "I don't agree, but I'm not going to make a scene."

And make Coleman (or Harry Reid or whoever) sue him to get his ass out.

He looks like he's being played for a sucker.

if he decided to ignore the law and just get himself seated. I'm sure this is hard on him, but I think he's handling it the only way he can.

And at the Senate level, there was discussion of whether the MN election certificate was actually needed. According to Senate rules, it is - but rules can be changed. But the Senate decided that wasn't an option.

Request
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/02/05/frankent_courthearing/
Franken campaign attorney Marc Elias told the Supreme Court that Minnesota is not being served because the state has only one U.S. Senator. He told the panel it should fix that by ordering Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty and DFL Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to sign and issue the election certificate, at least on a temporary basis.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37213339.html
The chances of seating a new Minnesota senator any time soon faded drastically Wednesday as Democratic leaders announced that they will not recognize a new senator without a state election certificate.

Laying down the marker in the case of Illinois appointee Roland Burris, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he is open to seating the embattled Democrat, but only if he wins an election certificate in a case he has brought before the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Illinois controversy, which has overshadowed the start of the 111th Congress, has a direct bearing on the recount between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman, because Minnesota law bars state officials from issuing an election certificate until all legal challenges are settled.

Summary from
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/news/articles.php?ID=4447
January 12, 2009
The AP reports that the Franken campaign has sent a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie asking that they issue an election certificate to Al Franken so that he may be seated by the Senate. The letter says that the Senate shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of its own members and that the ongoing election contest should not stop the two officials from issuing the certificate. The Senate last week said that it would not seat Roland Burris, who was appointed by a scandal-tainted Governor Blagojevich to fill President-elect Obama’s Senate seat, without a certificate signed by the state’s governor and secretary of state. This implies that they will not seat a winner from Minnesota without a certificate either. However, the same AP report questions whether Senate rules require a certificate or just provide recommendations for the form of such certificates and the keeping of records. Illinois’ attorney general says no law requires the Secretary of State’s signature on appointments. The Franken campaign plans to file documents in Coleman v. Franken later today. Any new filings will be posted to our case page.

he didn't just show up in D.C. and demand Reid seat him as was suggested he do in another post.

it seems that NEITHER side wants the democrats to have a filibuster-proof majority for that fake fight. the insurance/pharma industries have decreed it to be so.

on this are here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=160&topic_id=36237&mesg_id=36237

I really would, but it seems you are correct.

They are usually the last ones to report it correctly.

Somebody is doing their damndest to make sure this is dragged out as long as possible, and I don't think it's Coleman anymore.

For what purpose? Well that's obvious. The theoretical 60th Democratic vote. With health care being THE topic of the day.

edge of our seats here, too, Senator Franken..Good LUCK!!

Minnesota Statutes 204C.40 CERTIFICATES OF ELECTION.

Subdivision 2. Time of issuance; certain offices.

No certificate of election shall be issued until seven days after the canvassing board has declared the result of the election. In case of a contest, an election certificate shall not be issued until a court of proper jurisdiction has finally determined the contest. This subdivision shall not apply to candidates elected to the office of state senator or representative.

so- if the minnesupremes find for franken, and normie decides to take it to the u.s. supremes, can pawlenty then declare that the federal court is one of proper jurisdiction, so he can't issue the certificate until they have finally ruled on it?

the link to Pawlenty's various statements (earlier in thread), he has explicitly kept open that option.

the electorate is being SCREWN.

Neither Franken nor Coleman are hurting.

Franken won't bring it up as an issue.

Of course, if there's an issue that's a Constitutional issue in terms of possibly violating the US Constitution, they can go beyond the state level.
("Federal courts may also hear cases concerning state laws if the issue is whether the state law violates the federal Constitution." - from link below)

But that doesn't mean the federal courts have "jurisdiction" over state laws (does it?).

here's something:
"In many cases, both federal and state courts have jurisdiction. This allows parties to choose whether to go to state court or to federal court."

http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu2b&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/CCA93B3B87C844BC85256C7900460860?opendocument

If Coleman "chose" to go to state court first, has that defined who has jurisdiction?

Give the SCOTUS precisely **ZERO** reason to even hear the eventual appeal.

Their conclusion: Given that most analysts had this as a slam-dunk for team Franken, the longer this goes on, the worse this looks for Al.

Possibilities:

- they are deadlocked on a major issue
- they are not deadlocked, but the Republican members are dragging their feet as long as possible
- they are not deadlocked, but the Democratic members are dragging their feet as long as possible (Ed advanced the theory the Dems fear getting the 60th vote)
- they cannot come to a consensus on which of many draft rulings they should sign

this decision.

..and I do believe, whether proper or not, there is that one decision where those who did the nominating decide to call in that chip. Bush v. Gore was such a case. This may well be another.

:eyes:

Of course it's political. The people of MN should have rioted during the first week of december. Now there is no one to make this happen

http://kstp.com/article/stories/s740654.shtml?cat=1
The three-judge panel that will hear a lawsuit over Minnesota's contested Senate election includes one Republican appointee, one Democratic appointee and one named by an independent governor.

Obviously, many things can hold up the decision. But right now, we're not out of the realm of "expected range". Someone on DU said earlier today that court decisions are usually announced on Thursdays - I didn't know about that but maybe it's right.

http://www.minnlawyer.com/article.cfm/2009/06/02/Minnesota-Supreme-Court-takes-on-ColemanFranken-Decision-expected-in-the-next-month
The state Supreme Court declined to say how long it will take to make a decision in the case. Because of the amount of the time the case has stretched on already and the urgency of the situation, court observers predict a relatively fast turnaround, perhaps as soon as a month from now.

that's that. It's over.

a bit longer. The Republicans would completely explode if Reid tried to change the rules.