Skip to main content

View Diary: Coleman legal strategy is cheap and effective for the Republicans (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  David Schultz from Hamline thinks the SC judges (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK, Norbrook

    tipped their hand today

    David Schultz of Hamline University, who teaches election law, said "Yes, I’m thinking they have tipped their hand. They're saying that once the state Supreme Court has reached their decision, the certificate question is over." Sure, Coleman can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or he can try to start a new federal case. Theoretically, if he wins on either of those strategies, he might yet get to return to the Senate. But the Minnesota courts control the interpretation of the Minnesota law that tells Minnesota officials when to issue an election certificate."

    http://www.minnpost.com/...

    Franken wins ECC, MnSC passes, Franken gets his ticket to ride.

    •  heres the thing though. Pawlenty could be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lenzy1000, Norbrook

      pedantic.

      "Secretary of State Ritchie, who has to sign the election certificate, has taken the position that the certificate is issued when the state courts are done and have determined who is entitled to the certificate. Gov. Pawlenty, who is supposed to create and sign the certificate (before Ritchie), has said that he thinks an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would be reason to wait, and implied (his statement wasn't clear) that if the case is alive in any court, the petition waits."

      Imagine:

      1. ECC rules for Fraken
      1. MN-Sup says, we pass on the appeal, order Pawlenty to sign cert
      1. Coleman appeals to SCOTUS anyway, Pawlenty says unclear so he's waiting for SCOTUS ruling, maybe even SOS ask SCOTUS for clarification/ruling
      1. Franken lawyer asks for MN-Sup's to force the cert
      1. ???

      If Pawlenty really wants to be a dick its unlikely he'd immediately be charged for saying this is unclear or wanting clarification... perhaps?

      Technically I agree with the author here.. but I don't think that this will be 100% smooth after the MN-Supremes rule.  I just see Tim being enough of a partisan hack to try whatever he can dream up to delay this.

      •  Every indication is that Pawlenty will be a dick (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quotemstr, lenzy1000, notrouble

        Man is not a rational animal. Man is a rationalization animal.

        by Pacific Blue on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 05:46:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  MNSC says appeals end with state, not federal. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lenzy1000

        In the 3/6/09 ruling, the MN Supreme Court writes:

               1.     Minnesota Statutes § 204C.40, subd. 2 (2008), which provides that a
        certificate of election cannot be issued until the state courts have finally decided an
        election contest pending under chapter 209, applies to an election for the United States
        Senate.

        MNSC Franken Certification Rulling

        •  The ultimate court of appeal (0+ / 0-)

          For a contested Senate election is not the U.S. Supreme Court.

          It is the U.S. Senate.

          •  Tell that to President Gore /nm (0+ / 0-)
            •  The eyes dance over the page (0+ / 0-)

              But nothing, apparently, goes through the pupil, down the optic nerve, and connects to the brain.

              For instance, the words "For a contested Senate election".

              •  14th Amendment counts for any election, because (0+ / 0-)

                you're saying the state has a broken system, thus its not equal protection.  So the argument is unconstitutional election.

                Applies to any election.

                •  The Constitution (0+ / 0-)

                  Gives the ultimate decision-making power on the legitimacy of Senate credentials to the U.S. Senate.

                  If, following the Minnesota courts' final rulings, Coleman wants to make a 14th Amendment case, he can -- but he'll have to do it before the United States Senate.

                  •  I agree in principle about jusidiction but people (0+ / 0-)

                    without standing try to bring cases before SCOTUS all the time, and sometimes people bring cases where SCOTUS says they don't have jusidiction.

                    You know all the cases where SCOTUS said that its a state rather than federal issue?  The people that originally brought the cases knew about questionable jurisdiction.  It didn't stop them from filing.

                    •  Scotus Question (0+ / 0-)

                      I know partisanship isn't supposed to be part of this...but I can see the Wingers on the Bench sticking their noses in again.

                      Can't you see it now?  Petitioner Coleman claims that failure to act by the SC would cause him great harm.  Just like they did in Bush v. Gore.  Only this time, they use a different rationale that again will only apply to this one case.

                      Trust the wingers to do everything in their power to steal another election.

        •  Coleman is setting up a Fed 14th Amendment (0+ / 0-)

          argument, that is the 14th Amendment.

          Just as a Ham and Cheese sandwich could get indicted, so could a Ham and Cheese sandwich file a brief with the SCOTUS.

          Have the birthers and truthers taught you nothing?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site