Skip to main content

Franken wins by +312 votes.

At 3:30pm Monday Team Norm held a press conference announcing their appeal of the ECC decision to the MN Supreme Court.

Team Franken answered at 4:45pm

Front Pager SusanG was up with a diary before 6:00 here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...

Volleys past the Orange fold.....

     The Coleman Appeal (sounds like a rejected Aqua Velva TV ad)
     The Countdown calendar is GONE because Norm Coleman (henceforward to be known as the "Appellant" in place of "ContestANT") filed his appeal with the MN Supreme Court (MNSC) Monday afternoon. And not just the Notice of Appeal, but an Appellants Statement of Case.
Here, top couple of items:http://www.mncourts.gov/...
     The Statement is 7 pages, sort of a precis (!) or first sketch of what their case will look like. It is supposed to be rather limited but it sure seems to this non-lawyer to be dang limited. They fill in all the required notifications and briefly review the trial. Then on pages 4 & 5 they get to the heart of what they are asking:
    The Election Contest Court erred:

  1. by excluding evidence local officials applied the statewide standards of law differently varying by locality, resulting in "illegal" votes being included in the certified total.
  1. by counting so many "illegal votes" that certifying Franken the winner was incorrect. This violates (they claim) equal protection and due process.
  1. by requiring a strict compliance standard for counting absentee ballots (in its Feb. 13 ruling; they REALLY don't like that ruling!) Since other ballots were counted under another, looser, standard this denies equal protection to all ballots.
  1. by not ordering inspections of precincts to investigate 'double counting'
  1. by allowing the 132 'missing ballots' Minneapolis precinct ballots to be counted

     Everybody can play "Supreme Court Justice" on these! I'll start, OK? Starting from the bottom, #5-- not a chance. These are in and will stay in until John Cornyn grows more than 80 grams of functioning cerebral tissue (you know, not in this space-time continuum?).
#4-- not a chance. It is NOT up to the Court to order investigations that produce evidence for one of the parties in a case. You want something (like evidence) done, ya gotta do it yourself, Norm.
#3-- not a chance. You want a court of law to ignore/evade/wink at the law? That might work in Alabama, son, (Justice for Seigelman!) but it ain't going to work here, not for 20 cases of Surly beer or 2 ounces of lutefisk. No way.
#2 & #1-- the only hope on equal protection/due process grounds and the only part of the appeal worth hearing. Is there a statewide set of standards? Yes. Can human beings enforce these standards? Yes. Did they? Yes. Were civil rights violated for an identifiable GROUP of people? (Afro-Americans? Nope. Women? Nope. Native Americans? Nope. Residents of New Narvik, MN who are left-handed, Norwegian, Baptist, tee-totaling gopher kissers? Nope. Students in Dinkytown whose 132 ballots were lost by election officials but who actually showed up and signed in to vote, and the machine tapes show they did indeed vote?--- happened and addressed in #5.)
    BTW, Colemanik lawyer types? If you win on #5, you disenfranchise 132 MN voters. They are denied equal protection and due process by YOUR acts. Your appeal against them is by (WineRev's) definition a denial of Constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. You double-dealing, Janus-faced, two-bit, forked tongue, soul-less Ginsberg kissers! Knock it off!
    I have no idea (although like you, I am about to get a world of education) how the MNSC works, but it sure seems to me they could look at #3, #4, & #5 "under advisement" for, oh, about a day, and then issue something denying them on the spot. (Don't know what it would be called, or even if they could lop off part of the appeal this way. But it sure would be efficient.)

    MN attorney for Coleman James Langdon (the best of the Coleman bunch; a lawyer who deserves a better client IMHO) was quoted as saying he thought the MNSC would hear the case in 2 weeks to 2 months (and pointed out 6 months would normally be typical) but that he doubted it would be even 2 months.

"I'm sure they're very sensitive to the passage of time in this matter and will do it as soon as they think it is reasonable under the circumstances," Langdon said.

(WCCO/AP)

    Ben Ginsberg blathered by remote from Europe (he's vacationing there; sorry, Europe!) and raved about the usual things on disenfranchisement of the 4400, equal protection, and satisfaction that finally this would get heard by a court that could really act.
   Yeah, right. Comment of the day from the UpTake Live Blog from North Carolina

[Comment From Harry in NC]
Ginsberg is representing ME. I feel like a Minnesotan, and my ballot for Minn Senator was not counted. Of course I didn't cast one, nor was I entitled to, but damn it all, I wanted to vote in Minn.

    The Franken Response
     Marc Elias held a presser by phone from his home in VA about an hour & half after the filing. He was brief and pointed:

  1. The Franken team (Franken at this level is known as "Respondent", replacing "ContesTEE" in the ECC) will file a motion TODAY asking to expedite the case. (They are tired of waiting too; after all, they have a Ginsberg to crush! Ah-HA!)
  1. To keep things moving team Franken will ask for the Coleman briefs (not just the Statement of the Case) by Monday April 27 (I think that's forcing the tempo; not quite the Ohio State Marching Band entering to the drum corps hammering at 180 beats/minute, but judicially moving at "double quick step.")
  1. They join Team Coleman in asking for oral arguments, also in an expeditious way. (Coleman formally requested orals in their Statement. Its only a request; the Court does NOT need to grant and can go on just the written briefs. I myself think they want to hear it in the flesh.)

   Elias was feisty and dismissive in turns: (MN Independent)

Four of five Coleman claims actually call for disenfranchising voters, Elias said: "When it comes to disenfranchisement, no one holds a candle to the legal team assembled by Sen. Coleman."

    Al Franken’s attorney dismissed Norm Coleman’s appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court today as "same old, same old" and the "death throes" of the Coleman legal effort.
    "It’s not easy," Marc Elias said of being on the short end of a disputed election. "But at some point you have to accept the reality."

"What we have now is the death throes of the Coleman legal effort," Elias said.

(WCCO/AP)
    "Death throes," eh? Well Marc, next you'll be calling Norm's legal team a bunch of "dead enders" (which they are of course)..... but enough about Senate republicans! Lets move on to......

      Supreme Court Questions
      Subject to correction in the comments from our legal pros hanging around here, I think the sequence is:

  1. Notice of Appeal; Coleman (done, 4/20)
  1. Statement of Case; Coleman (done, 4/20)
  1. Motion to Expedite; Franken (coming, 4/21)
  1. Appellants Brief;  Coleman (Franken requesting, 4/27)
  1. Respondents Brief; Franken, Elias states they could have this by May 2. (In their massively thorough way, I think when they do, Elias, Lillehaug & Hamilton's brief will cite a Peruvian Inca legislative from 718AD; and Egyptian case law: Cheops vs. Giza (-2533 BCE), recently found next to the map room in Tanis. (Also found: medallion with markings on BOTH sides ("Take BACK 12 kadem in honor of the Hebrew God whose ark this is"), broken staff, shredded swastika flag.)

    The first 3 are set. Starting with 4 & 5 the Supreme Court will set a Briefing Schedule/Calendar. Both sides will do 4 & 5, and there may be a round (or even 2) of responses by each side (EG: "Appellant's Response to Respondent's Brief" or some such title; then "Respondent's Response to Appellant's Response") (Elias for Franken mentioned 4 & 5, and even said if Coleman has a response to 5--by May 2--- that they produce it by May 4.)
    Sometime among the flying briefs (or maybe after?) the Court can order oral arguments. THAT will be MUST SEE TV (and if the UpTake can make budget they will have it, along with the best running live blog in the business) The High Court has been generous in allowing televising (of earlier arguments over various motions.) If there are oral arguments, 3 things:
    1) Norm Coleman already mentioned last week Joe Friedberg would appear for him to do the honors. No word so far from the Franken side. Who do you like? Kevin Hamilton (who did a masterful job on closing arguments in ECC)? Marc Elias (best election law mind in the country)? David Lillehaug (perhaps the sharpest, think-on-your-feet mind we saw in the whole trial)?
    2) When the Supreme Court has heard earlier arguments in this election they ordered 1 hour of arguments total. Each side's attorney faced a 30 minute grilling from the 5 judges over certain rather narrow motions. Do the appeal lawyers have a sense if the Court might order longer oral arguments, just because it IS the Appeal, and because they KNOW this case will be studied and cited for a long time? Could they order, say, 1 hour/ side? Or "Appellant, 2 hours in the morning' Respondent, 2 hours in the afternoon"?
    3) Is that the order they would bat: appellant, then respondent? (Is there rebuttal at all?) And if this IS the order, is there a slight advantage for the respondent's side? They would get to hear Friedberg and could shape some of their argument on the spot as reply, yes/no? Or are the questions from the Court likely to be rather different to each side so there is not a lot of overlap?

    Not Them Again: The Wall Street Journal/Yurinal--as said in MN.
   While we were waiting for an appeal or a concession ("Norm? 2 hot dogs with mustard please!") the Wall Street Journal decided to show us the mentality that has led America to our current economic disaster prosperity in a dunderheaded article here:
http://online.wsj.com/...
    As a sample of the brain power that strains at 98% capacity to grind upper & lower jaws in a chewing motion we have:

"....there have been plenty of irregularities. By the end of the recount, the state was awash with evidence of duplicate ballot counting, newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, illegal voting, and wildly diverse standards as to which votes were counted."

    Neither the state nor the Election Contest Court that was specially appointed to hear the case heard evidence of duplicate ballot counting--- only speculation from Norm's legal team (and Pamela Howell)/ newly discovered ballots---- utter fantasy beyond the drug-assisted ravings of Ben Ginsberg/ missing ballots--- that were heard about and ruled upon/ illegal voting--- which Ben Ginsberg is ADVOCATING!/ wildly diverse standards as to which votes were counted--- diverse here means ballots that conformed to the LAW and those that DO NOT.
    Having gotten crushed by the conscious media the last time they offered anything on this Recount (including getting pounded in print by a judge and member of the State Canvassing Board, and by the webmaster of the right-wing Powerline website) you'd think the Wall Street Journal would have learned something. If they did it expired like an over-ripe kumquat with this piece. On the stupid scale it hangs somewhere between the charm of Dick Cheney, the compassion of Donald Rumsfeld, and the vacantly blinking, slack-jawed 77 IQ-ness of the W. Ptui!

    The WineRev Project: A Little Help, Please
    Work continues on creating a book out of these diaries. Last week we asked for your input for title suggestions. Along with others that have trickled in over the past month there are dozens to pick from.
    In the "Poll" below I'm asking for your input in a Market Survey sort of way. But your comments will likely be more important. Which title do you like and why? Which would sell the best with the public at large? Is there a better sub-title? Should Main Title D actually be paired with Subtitle G, you know, mix & match? Its harder than it looks because there's a lot to be said for each of them. (A late friend of mine once defined real leadership as "the ability to choose between 2 GOOD things.")
    You can see I/we (the Amazonic editors I have on this project; ooohhh they are good women; someday I might even meet them in person) were shooting for a few targets: the recount/election/democracy process, the blogging/internet/online take on this, and a bit of whimsy/humor/snarky-ness. Trying to get all that into one title may be too much but we're trying. That also explains why some suggestions are not here. They were funny as hell ("A Yugo Full of Lutefisk"), a bit dry ("Democracy in Action"), perhaps overly derivative ("Wobegone No more and Way Above Average"/ "Elections and the Winning Winners who Win them").
    So tell us: how did we do? Marketeers to the fore! What will drive sales? Appeal to the larger audience? Stay fresh?
(Years ago someone wrote in to Ann Landers asking, "What's the difference between sales and marketing?" Ann consulted with her consultants and wrote back, "On a November dawn, a guy stands on the shoulder of an on-ramp to a freeway. Backpack. Thumb out. Hand lettered cardboard sign that says, "Dallas."--That's sales. "Same November dawn, same ramp, same backpack, same thumb. Handmade cardboard sign says, "Home for Thanksgiving with Mom."-- That's marketing.)

Tuesday Morning Minnesota Media
     Of course the Appeal being filed is the BIG story.
Jay Weiner at Minn Post:http://www.minnpost.com/...
    The Pioneer Press has a decent write-up of the situation and includes a quote from the US Senate:

"It is 167 days since the election," said Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, in a statement released after the appeal was filed. "(I)t is time for Republicans to stop holding this seat hostage as a way to obstruct President Obama's agenda. We should all let Senator-elect Franken get to work for the people who elected him."

    "Held hostage", eh? You know, between "death throes" and "held hostage", these Democratic types are at least showing they're getting the rhetoric down. (They can borrow my "Janus-faced Ginsberg kisser" if they want to.)
     Joe Bodell at Mn Progressive has a KILLER quote from Coleman attorney Ben Ginsberg in this brief bit here. When you have no soul, utter contradiction is easy:
http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/

Have the late shift at the shop today, so I'll have a 2nd cup with all of you. Thats the latest from yust southeast of Lake Wobegon.

Shalom.

Originally posted to WineRev on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 04:50 AM PDT.

Poll

Market Survey: Your favorite title & subtitle?

18%139 votes
9%72 votes
23%178 votes
4%31 votes
12%95 votes
8%69 votes
24%185 votes

| 769 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip jar for MOVING FORWARD (236+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mwjeepster, Jeff in CA, JWC, Alma, underwhelm, Aeolus, Jay, kate mckinnon, mndan, nicolemm, naraht, mattman, PeterHug, RunawayRose, Emerson, rincewind, Eman, leberquesgue, billlaurelMD, shayera, mslat27, polecat, freelunch, acuppajo, WI Deadhead, MMinNY, exNYinTX, Mooncat, JesterDel, concernedamerican, Dazy, DaleA, Rupert, mnkid, javelina, nargel, hopeful, rjnerd, wader, Rotegard, NMRed, asterlil, JimDev, mayan, Dallasdoc, pat bunny, LegacyLDad, 2liberal, hoof32, rockhound, annetteboardman, papercut, alizard, count, peterj911, parryander, ganymeade, furi kuri, snowbird42, sawgrass727, Julie Gulden, rapala, vcmvo2, joanneleon, lcs, radarlady, salmo, PBen, KnotIookin, dantes, kefauver, Clem Yeobright, MT Spaces, Pam from Calif, Phil S 33, blue jersey mom, Tunk, spunhard, FightTheFuture, EeDan, sodalis, Alan Arizona, Dania Audax, Sister Havana, CJnyc, maryru, Showman, SoniaS, Ellicatt, dougymi, Finngall, deha, MTmofo, 123frenchwine, hideinplainsight, Eloise, tecampbell, aepm, Lashe, DtheO, pi1304, bleeding heart, ER Doc, BarbaraB, llbear, Turbonerd, weidheimer, IL clb, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Compostings, Granny Doc, RickBoston, b3citizen, NonnyO, clinging to hope, nathguy, Ken in MN, JFinNe, dogdad, desertguy, vets74, threegoal, Allogenes, blue71340, profmom, HeartlandLiberal, drchelo, Seneca Doane, Ken in Tex, Bridge Master, Joffan, VA Breeze, jwinIL14, MKinTN, coachster, ParisBob, Clubbedinthehead, ratador, Blackacre, OleHippieChick, Youffraita, indyada, elwior, binkaroni, John Barleycorn, Judeling, Its any one guess, TomFromNJ, pamelabrown, BlueStateRedhead, HoosierDeb, lgcap, shortgirl, lostboyjim, JBL55, legendmn, Fiddlegirl, 207wickedgood, Pris from LA, malibu1964, MufsMom, MTmarilyn, classico, ProfJonathan, juca, gdwtch52, NM Ward Chair, TheOtherJimM, cantelow, DemocraticOz, be the change you seek, WiseFerret, velvet blasphemy, mkor7, WobegonGal, DefendOurConstitution, Phlogiston Junkie, ProgressiveTokyo, followyourbliss, johngoes, MooseHB, obscuresportsquarterly, bbagley1, stevenwag, romwriter, Andhakari, Dragon5616, Oldengrey, Edge PA, Leftovers, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, Phaseshift360, Vacationland, RethinkEverything, BP in NJ, freewilly, candysroom, wvmom, ItsSimpleSimon, sharonsz, pateTX, rja, skillet, ericlewis0, jonwilliamsl, tenar, CA Berkeley WV, DudleyMason, sidious666, Actbriniel, nampa45, kktlaw, Linda in Ohio, yankeedevil, carabeth, Olon, m00finsan, blueinmn, Oregon Progressive Dem, lovespaper, Cinnamon, Britkid, deweysmom, aircap, SusanL143, MRA NY, tenzen, gnbhull, Nola Sue, earljellicoe, JoeEngineer, cherish0708, Archie2227, Dbug, Deva Royal, blue aardvark

    Nice to write about real news again.

    Shalom.

    "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

    by WineRev on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 04:52:14 AM PDT

  •  This is one of those hell dimensions, isn't it? (10+ / 0-)

    We're pushing a big rock up a hill, and every time we get to the top, it rolls back down again. And it's never going to stop.

    Today, for some reason, I feel discouraged.

  •  A little help on 'substantial compliance', please (13+ / 0-)

    Coleman contends that 'a substantial compliance standard ... reflect[s] [the standards] actually applied by election officials'.

    'Substantial compliance' suggests to me a determination that a ballot that meets most of the requirements for acceptance but demonstrably fails one or more should nonetheless be accepted. I don't recall the Coleman side presenting a single case of this happening, and I don't recall that being their argument in the ECC.

    As I recall, what Coleman demonstrated was that election officials, pressed by time and lacking resources, sometimes used a looser standard of evaluation than that imposed by the ECC to determine if a ballot complied with the law, that is, without proof that a ballot failed to meet a criterion, they may have presumed that the criterion had been met. That is a far different thing.

    It seems to me, then, that exactly the same standard was applied in the ECC as in the election:

    Given the information available and the time allotted, every ballot must be subjected to the same scrutiny and no ballot that does not conform strictly to the law may be accepted.

    To be absolutely clear: If every criterion for every ballot is marked 'Yes', 'No', or 'Don't Know', 'Substantial Compliance' would allow a ballot with a 'No' to be accepted, and there is no evidence that this ever happened. Strict compliance only demands that no ballot with a 'No' be accepted; it does not require that no ballot with a 'Don't Know' be accepted as long as every reasonable effort has been made to resolve the 'Don't Know' items. Given the resources available to the Court and the parties, there was no reason that any 'Don't Know' conclusions should persist.

    Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

    by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:03:57 AM PDT

    •  It's terminology, and Coleman knows it. (7+ / 0-)

      As I recall, there were four criteria that the ECC said had to be met by absentee ballots.  Like being in on time, proof that you were a registered voter, etc.  

      So, following Colemanesque logic -- let's say the ballot is in on time but you're not a registered voter.  Do the Republicans really want that to be precedent, when their only way of winning elections is to keep the Democratic votes uncounted?  

      "Strict Compliance/Substantial Compliance"  -- some of it is common sense, right?

    •  Presumptions (8+ / 0-)

      Coleman's argument, at least at the ecc, was that the presumption of regularity should carry the day, rather than actually offering proof of for instance registration to vote.  While the county boards may have essentially "presumed" things like witness or voter registration, once the ballots were rejected by local boards, it would be wrong to apply such presumptions. Actual proof was necessary. I think that this is where Coleman fails (among other reasons).

      •  Presumption is neither strict nor substantial (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rincewind, Seneca Doane

        is it?

        Substantial compliance, ISTM, would be an absentee ballot being accepted and counted with no witness signature whatsoever.

        As an example, at least one voter testified, IIRC, that he presented himself with ID at the county office, was issued an absentee ballot, filled it in at the counter and handed it to the clerk. I believe this was a 'matching signatures' case (and there may have been other similar cases), and I believe that in this case the clerk duly signed that ballot return envelope as witness, but a voter following this procedure and failing to obtain a witness signature would have substantially but not strictly complied with the law if his ballot was counted.

        Coleman presented no evidence I can recall that any absentee ballot with no witness signature whatsoever was accepted and counted anywhere in the state. For him to argue that 'substantial compliance' was the standard in effect, he needs to demonstrate that something like this occurred even once. Am I wrong?

        Does anyone else recall a case Coleman presented to support his contention?

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:29:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The funny thing about such a standard (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rincewind, Clem Yeobright

      is that it would inevitably increase the amount of arbitrariness (and thus decrease the amount of equal protection) across agents doing the counting.  Who is to say that a given departure from full compliance is acceptable in Anoka but disqualifying in Duluth?  And then Duluth, but not Anoka, may accept other similarly minor departures.

      Once you get to this stage, you truly have only one possible standard: full compliance, except when there are compelling reasons unrelated to the expected vote to waive it (like perhaps "oops, they dropped all of those ballot envelopes in bleach.")

      •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rincewind, Seneca Doane

        The ECC accepted (IIRC) one voter's affidavit that s/he had requested an absentee ballot as a substitute for the request that could not be located by officials, but it declined to establish a principle that every other missing application could be presumed also to be the fault of the state.

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:09:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Really good argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      I think that pretty well sums up the state's case.  To me, it knocks Coleman's case out of the water.  It does make sense to me, as well, that a court having just about unlimited time, should scrutinize every ballot that is put before it in light that the ballots were all rejected previously.  

      Many of you know that Coleman has a list of "disenfranchised voters" on his website.  I e-mailed the site and asked if they had information on why each of those ballots were previously rejected.  No answer, so far.  

  •  Remember the WSJ Thumbsucker is just Opinion (5+ / 0-)

    It's written by people who seem to go out of their way not to read any facts in any newspapers, not even the WSJ. I think that the Opinion folks are proud to be wrong. The rest of the paper is actually trustworthy.

    •  Ooh! That Wall Street Journal piece (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      I really thought the Wall Street Journal piece was terrible.  What really was bad was that the readers who commented accepted the slant and smears without question.  The story is wrong about the state's judiciary and several readers commented that something should be done with the judges in Minnesota.  There were 45 pages of commentary and for the first 30, there was hardly a comment in defense of the process.  

  •  All For Naught (6+ / 0-)

    Never has a less deserving man wasted so much of his party's capital and political capital for nothing.  Keep up the good work Norm, maybe you can appeal from jail.

  •  Regarding Coleman's point 4 and your response (9+ / 0-)

    Subdivision 1. Appointment of inspectors. After a contest has been instituted, either party may have the ballots inspected before preparing for trial. The party requesting an inspection shall file with the district court where the contest is brought a verified petition, stating that the case cannot properly be prepared for trial without an inspection of the ballots and designating the precincts in which an inspection is desired. A judge of the court in which the contest is pending shall then appoint as many sets of three inspectors for a contest of any office or question as are needed to count and inspect the ballots expeditiously. One inspector must be selected by each of the parties to the contest and a third must be chosen by those two inspectors. If either party neglects or refuses to name an inspector, the judge shall appoint the inspector. The compensation of inspectors is the same as for referees, unless otherwise stipulated.

    Section 209.06 INSPECTION OF BALLOTS.

    Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

    by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:09:35 AM PDT

    •  OK I sit corrected. (4+ / 0-)

      But WHEN did Coleman ask for this? Did he? And if you don't ask, you don't get, right?

      They can't NOW go to the MNSC and complain about this can they?

      Shalom.

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:39:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it was in his original proposed schedule. (4+ / 0-)

        Yes, I am certain he asked for it and was denied, but I'm all doc'd out now.

        'count' will no doubt produce the definitive answer when he gets here ...

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:52:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  very early in the contest (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, TerribleTom, BP in NJ

        From memory, in January -- I'll go look it up later.

        One Nation, (still) Under Surveillance

        by rincewind on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:55:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yup, Jan 22 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright, TerribleTom

          "Verified Petition for Appointment of Inspectors", here.

          One Nation, (still) Under Surveillance

          by rincewind on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 07:57:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Right, Rince. About "inspections"... (4+ / 0-)

          At the very beginning of the contest, the Coleman camp asserted that they needed inspections first in order to prepare for trial. They filed a detailed set of proposed "rules" for the conduct of such inspections that, naturally, would occur in designated precincts across the state (designated by Coleman, naturally).

          The proposed rules were laughable--even fanciful--and included details on who would use what kind of rubber stamps and what would be recorded by whom on special note pads. (I wonder if they sought a patent on their unique invention.)

          When all is said and done, C's proposed inspection plan would have amounted to yet another recount (or, more to the point, a "recount on steroids" or an "enhanced recount technique") in precincts specifically challenged by Coleman.

          Had the court bought into this scheme, we would have had another preliminary phase--le Grande Recherche--before the trial got kicked off.

          Now then, MN law does provide for limited inspections of ballots as a way of accessing and verifying physical ballots in an election contest. Otherwise, parties would not have a method of ascertaining whether certain ballots existed, had been counterfeited, etc., since ballots are locked up and preserved.

          The ECC considered C's motion (plan, motion, brief, opposing brief, arguments, order) and rejected C's grand plan for two principal reasons:

          1. Coleman asked not just for inspection of ballots, but also for inspections of "election materials" (including voter rolls and the like). The ECC ruled that "ballots" means ballots--it does not mean ballots plus whatever else Coleman wanted the inspectors to inspect. It was a pretty straight-forward matter of statutory construction, IMO, based on the plain language of the statute and consistent with historical use of the inspection process in prior contests.
          1. The ECC found that Coleman had not demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the court, that he required inspections to prepare for his case. Other means were available for Coleman to discover his facts and just looking at ballots (see #1 above) was not necessary for him to prepare for trial.

          In an appellate context, I believe #2 is subject to review under an "abuse of discretion" standard by the MNSC. Given that C's arguments were pretty weak that it was vital to his prep to have ballots inspected, that's going to be hard to reverse on appeal, IMO.

          To prevail on this issue, Coleman needs to convince the MNSC to render an expansive interpretation of the statute. Basically, he's asking the court to interpret "ballots" as meaning ballots plus whatever else a party thinks should be inspected. In taking such an extreme stretch, the MNSC would, in effect, be endorsing selective recounts-of-recounts according to "rules" developed by one litigant in an election contest.

          It seems to me that the MNSC, having seen the protracted mess that actually occured without the additional step of enhanced inspections prior to trial, is extremely unlikely to take an expansive view of the scope of inspections.

          Do they want to add--as precedent applying to future election contests--a whole new phase? I don't think so.

          Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

          by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:51:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The contest statute does NOT presuppose (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rincewind

            that a recount has taken place, as I read it. The inspection of ballots would be appropriate and essential if the candidates had had no prior opportunity to view the ballots or even verify the count. In this case ... not so much.

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 09:58:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  True. And while I was applying the facts of this (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rincewind, Clem Yeobright

              case, it weakens C's argument even further to note that the legislative intent behind the inspections procedures contemplated rapid inquiry into elections that have not undergone a full recount and were in no way intended to authorize "recounts of recounts".

              Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

              by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:29:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  contradiction (0+ / 0-)

            it sounds like
            on one hand coleman argues that
            court was "excluding evidence" to reject colemans
            proposed "selective recounts-of-recounts"
            but wouldnt such "selective recounts-of-recounts"
            even in preparation for trial
            contradict colemans own equal protection arguement
            winerev lists in #3 above:

            "by requiring a strict compliance standard for counting absentee ballots...Since other ballots were counted under another, looser, standard this denies equal protection to all ballots."

            •  Jay: For the record (0+ / 0-)

              Coleman's 'exclusion of evidence' issue (5-I) refers to the ECC's refusal to entertain (and be entertained by? LOL) the testimony of King Banaian, which it ruled irrelevant as proposed.

              The 'inspection of ballots' issue (5-IV) relates to the contention that in a few precincts ballots were double-counted, and the ECC's response was that the statutory process is inappropriate to that end but it invited Coleman to use subpoenas to develop and introduce the very same information (which never happened).

              That said, there is nothing inherently 'wrong' with an inconsistent argument, e.g., 'You should decide that my client did not fire the gun, but if you decide he did, then you should decide it was an accident, and if you decide it was not an accident, you should remember he has a mother who loves him ...'

              Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

              by Clem Yeobright on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:41:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Did Coleman ask for the inspection? (5+ / 0-)

      Everything he filed was up on the courts website.  I don't recall seeing anything he filed asking for one.  And didn't they inspect the ballots during the recount?

      Coleman is saying they didn't inspect precincts to identify double counting.  That's more than looking at ballots.

      The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held... -Bertrand Russell

      by glynis on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:44:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not everything is there yet. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        count, Seneca Doane, BP in NJ

        In one of the early Franken docs, for instance, he responds to Coleman motions of 1/6 and 1/13 that I don't find there.

        I think we might choose to lean toward assuming that the claims Coleman makes to the Supreme Court are supported by the trial record.

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:58:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Adding (about what's posted on the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rincewind, count, Clem Yeobright

          court's website and what is not):

          Before concluding that a motion hasn't been posted, you need to sweep in the entire court transcript. That is because not all motions are delivered as written motions. Oral motions may be made--and frequently are made--in open court.

          It isn't that unusual for a party to make an oral motion on the record and then for the other party to file a written opposition or rebuttal, with legal citations or even a full brief attached.

          Matching written motions with written replies simply isn't a reliable way of concluding that something is missing on the web site.

          Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

          by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 09:18:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  this is correct (5+ / 0-)

        Coleman was asking for inspection not just of ballots, but of rosters and absentee envelopes. That "inspection" falls outside the inspection provided by the statute, and is why they were denied.

        •  There's plenty on the record (4+ / 0-)

          about the inspections issue, starting with the first motion filed by Coleman in the contest.

          If you want to pick your way through it, look for stuff under headings pertaining to "proposed rules for the election contest", or similar rubrics.

          Underwhelm's explanation is correct. For a much more verbose and opinionated treatment, see my comment above. :-)

          Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

          by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 09:05:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The question of legal and court costs (5+ / 0-)

    I remember that being bandied about towards the end of the ECC trial, but not since.  Doesn't Coleman have to pony up a bunch of money before the SC hearing, including Franken's legal costs during the ECC trial??  

    Fortunately, treatment will be relatively inexpensive, since you have the generic form of the disease - the New Yorker

    by Alan Arizona on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:11:13 AM PDT

    •  Somewhere in here the bill comes due (13+ / 0-)

      To file the appeal is a $500 bond so thats a big nothing.

      COSTS vs. FEES.
         The contestANT (Norm) if he loses is on the hook for court COSTS: use of the courtroom, judges' food & lodging (Marben lived away from home 7 weeks!), mileage and per diem (like $20) for every witness called, copying costs, etc.
      (Someone here can run down more of the list; I'm just guessing at what seems likely.)
          Attorney FEES are a whole 'nother smoke. Each side pays for its own.
          BUT in the Pamela Howell fiasco the ECC sanctioned the Coleman legal team for not following rules of discovery. They nailed them for $7500 to the Court (doesn't sound like a lot but according to legal eagles around here its rather astonishing) AND said they would need to pay 3 days (of wasted time) worth of FRANKEN's attorney's fees. (Considered rare and noteworthy.)

      HTH. Subject to amendment by better informed minds.

      Shalom.

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:36:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fees/costs. Let's move on. Crim law anyone? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nathguy, TerribleTom

        IANAL please with all other IANALs to retain the facts about Costs v. Fees, and that Coleman owes minimal money to the court, so WineRev can concentrate on being funny or selling wine or fielding calls from publishers.

        No hope of bankrupting Coleman or his RNC supporters by hoping he has to pay for Franken's case. Want to know if  Coleman is going to go kerfluey financially? Ask team Coleman how much they charge for actual advising someone in whom the FBI is interested After all, their skipper is a crim defense lawyer.

      •  And court's costs and Franken's costs (0+ / 0-)

        to be billed at some undefined future time, but not before the MnSC proceeding.

  •  Friedberg? (10+ / 0-)

    Does he have much appellate experience?

    Choosing him seems like a shockingly bad idea. He's a criminal defense lawyer; he did a terrible job at trial, in part because he treated the three judge panel as if it were a jury, and in part because he seemed to have a poor understanding of election law and his burden of proof, reflexively behaving as if it were a criminal trial; what on earth makes team Coleman think he'll do better before the MNSCT?

  •  That's the secret! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, binkaroni

    "I'd like to know just what 'secrets' my client is accused of selling to the commies."

    "Secrets? 'Secret' Antiperspirant, the secret formula for Coke... 'The Secret of the Sierra Madre'... and the secret of Norm Coleman's appeal."

  •  Oh, please stop the bullshit "Alabama" stuff. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mooncat, WineRev

    .
     Like or dislike the candidates or results of our recent (or past) elections, Minnesota's clusterfucked-up thing is not something to be bragging about in comparison to any other state.

    bg
    _______________

    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

    by BenGoshi on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:31:36 AM PDT

    •  Yeah! (5+ / 0-)

      Alabama was way worser, man...

      (Did somebody get up on the wrong side of the Crimson Tide this morning???)

    •  Ben (13+ / 0-)

      I despise the corrupt acts of a blatantly UNJUST Bush administration using the legal system to falsely accuse and jail your governor. Its a travesty, a sin and a crime of the first order. The law-twisting that happened to Seigelman is staggering and YOUR state caught it in the neck.

      If this same sort of persecution and criminal behavior from the bench and the prosecutors office had happened in, say, Nebraska, I would be equally outraged and would cite that case.

      But it would only be a knock against what happened, and mention the location only to note the location of the "scene of the crime."

      If it turns out, say, Dick Cheney, gets convicted of water-boarding in the basement of the VP mansion in DC (let the gods grant) that would NOT be a slam on DC would it?

      Shalom.

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:43:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Blah, blah, effing blah. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mooncat

        .
         The Seigelman prosecution/persecution had nothing to do with fucked-up voting or corruption in voting.  It had to do with a couple of corrupt prosecutors and a Bush-appointed Federal Judge.

         Your gratuitous, bullshit swipe at the entire state and everyone who lives in it, in some kind of attempt (it seems) to show that the continuing voting clusterfuck in Minnesota is "at least not as bad as Alabama" demonstrates a political immaturity and naivete that debases an otherwise decent and substantive diary.

         bg
        ___________________

        "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

        by BenGoshi on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:50:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think it was a gratuitous slam against Alabama (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BenGoshi, Clem Yeobright

        First, the Siegelman case was tried in a federal court, not a state court, so you're already comparing apples to oranges.  Second, Mark Fuller, the judge in the Siegelman case, was appointed by George W. Bush, not elected by Alabama voters.  You can't pin the blame for bad Bush judicial appointees only on Alabama voters -- Bush carried a heck of a lot of other states too.  

        Folks from other places seem to enjoy kicking Alabama around as an example of corrupt hicks and hayseeds who probably marry their cousins if not their sisters.  We aren't like that.  We're working hard to change the image of liberals and progressives in Alabama and it makes our task more difficult if other liberals bash our state without good reason.  Heaven knows, there is plenty to criticize, but I think the slap at our courts was unnecessary in this case and is actually distracting from your more important arguments.  I respectfully suggest that a slight edit might be in order.

        •  They can't help themselves, it seems. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mooncat

          .
           They can't just make an argument about the fucked-uppedness of Minnesota without making irrelevant and gratuitous digs at other states, usually Alabama.  It's their way.
           
           Of course, these are the same people who would wax righteously indignant at Beck or Limbaugh taking asscrank, non-sequiter jabs at their state or political hobby horse.

           You're a better person than me, Mooncat, for "respectfully suggesting" an edit.  There's not one whit of respect, or sense, displayed at this dumbass dig against Alabama, so your gesture of making a "respectfully suggestion" demonstrates much more magnanimity than the Diarist deserves.

           bg
          ____________________

          "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

          by BenGoshi on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:56:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Minnesota is not fucked up (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rincewind, uffdalib, TexMex Junkie

            The law is clear and procedures were followed.  It's just that nobody in Minnesota is used to people like Norm Coleman acting like assholes.  When the law was drafted, it was assumed that the people running for office were grownups who wanted what was best for Minnesota.  That assumption is the only thing wrong with Minnesota's recount law.

          •  when "you" becomes "they" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rincewind

            and the diarist becomes one of "these are the same people" maybe it's your own assumptions that need examining. Respectfully suggested, of course.

  •  Questions? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    binkaroni, BP in NJ

    Didn't the ECC judges address these five issues in their findings?  Wouldn't their conclusions carry more weight with the Supreme Court than Coleman's "dang limited" conclusions?  IANAL so I don't know how it works, but will the Supreme Court judges first read the ECC's reports?  And could they use that as reasons not to hear the case at all?

  •  What's this "excluding evidence" in #1? n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xapulin, binkaroni
  •  Make it snarky/funny and informative (9+ / 0-)

    I would shoot for this to help continue the tradition of Al Franken's books.  They were all snarky, funny and VERY informative.  I think that would sell a lot more copies than just an informative book.

    I liked, " Last Laugh: How Al Franken stopped Norm Coleman's Republicans from Killing Democracy"  

    I think a similar cover to Al's "Lies and Lying Liars who tell them" would be awesome.  I want to see your smiling/determined face on the cover!

    Are you going for just an e-book or hard copy as well?

  •  No Culmination in Coleman Nation? (8+ / 0-)

    Step up and step down or step forward and step back, Norm.  And because it can't be said enough:

    U

    .S. Sen.  Norm Coleman today (Wednesday, Nov. 5) gently suggested that Democrat Al Franken concede the U.S. Senate race to him, thereby beginning the healing process.

    "The prospects of overcoming 725 votes is extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely remote," said Coleman, speaking at his campaign office in St. Paul late morning.

    "If you ask me what I would do, I would step back," said Coleman. (Then DO IT!)

    Coleman, eyes red-rimmed from lack of sleep, opined that the Minnesota election system is sound — it’s unlikely any great change in the ballot count would surface with a recount.      

              No hanging chads

    "We’re not dealing with hanging chads in Minnesota," he said, referring to the famous wisps of paper in Florida that figured so largely in the 2000 presidential election.

    "My hope is that we would begin the healing process today," said Coleman of closing the political divides in the state and nation.

    Coleman hoped the recount, if one takes place, could be conducted without recriminations or charges.

    "Forever is composed of nows." Emily Dickinson

    by Leftovers on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:41:27 AM PDT

  •  The locals are getting more and more upset (6+ / 0-)

    Read the comments on this StarTribune article about the appeal:
    http://www.startribune.com/...

    over 200 comments and i can't find one supportive of Normy's latest move.  A few weeks ago you'd see a few Norm supporters our there.  

  •  My Favorite Line of the Whole Piece (9+ / 0-)

    "Sorry, Europe."

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:50:32 AM PDT

  •  Uh, for 20 cases of Surly (0+ / 0-)

    I'd do pretty much anything.

    Although Norm as Senator—that might take a bit more

    (20 kegs of Darkness ftw)

  •  The MN Supreme Court says they're moving... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, vets74, BP in NJ

    ... expediently. Rev, how long until they come down with a decision you think? A month?

    The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place -- in cities all over America.

    by OReillysNightmare on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:57:25 AM PDT

    •  Chart showing binomial distribution... (0+ / 0-)

      with error rates matched-to differences in totals for 95% and 99% certainty of correct decision.

      Nate stuffs the math-ignorant merdeheads at WSJ.

      BTW: with a 99% certainty requirement and a 1-in-a-1,000 tabulation error rate, Al has 312/128th of the margin required.

      Yeah, a 128 vote margin gives a 99% certainty that this outcome is correct. Even with a 1-in-a-1,000 error rate.

      Droogie is as Droogie does....

      by vets74 on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:03:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  After Appeals exhausted: Federal Suit and more (9+ / 0-)

    Coleman's actions are being orchestrated by the GOP.  They want to prevent the 59th Democrat from being seated.....at all costs.  They will drag out the Minnesota State Appeal process (for example, moving for extensions of time to file briefs.  Then when those appeals are denied, Coleman's lawyers will file a Federal Suit challenging the constitutionality of all the state election laws, regulations, and proceedings. They hope that the Federal Case isn't quickly dismissed and that they can go a year or two before getting a final ruling.  They also hope to file a Federal Appeal and go to the GOP Friendly U.S. Supreme Court.

    What is the Strategy?  They want Pawlenty to say "his hands are tied" and that he cannot sign off on the election until the Federal Case is done.  If they can drag this out until 2010, they'll allege that this is a "vacant" seat and they'll request a "new election to settle the controversy."

    Of course, all of these legal maneuvers are frivolous and merely for the purposes of delaying Franken his rightful seat in the U.S. Senate.

    •  MN SUpremes will move fast (8+ / 0-)

      they will agree to order briefs in a week,
      and then they will move for orals fast.

      They will send down a summary order then or the next day
      and send down a written order soon thereafter.

      Now Coleman may go to federal court but, even rabid
      republican judges will be loathe to issue a stay of the
      certificate of election.

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:29:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the MN SC orders that an election certificate (6+ / 0-)

        be provided, I don't think Pawlenty can refuse to sign it.

        Contempt and all that.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        -Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:43:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pawlenty cannot be counted on.... (5+ / 0-)

          ....to do the right thing.  He can say his "hands are tied" by the Federal Court case.  It will be interesting to see what the MN Supreme Ct. rules.  If they just dismiss the appeal it makes it easier for Pawlenty to wait until the Federal Case is over.  If the MN Supreme court issues a Mandate specifically stating Pawlenty should sign the certificate, Pawlenty has a tough choice.

          My guess is that Pawlenty would listen to the MN Supreme Court if there is a specific mandate telling him to sign the certificate.

          •  Pawlenty has been breathtakingly craven (4+ / 0-)

            and stupid, I think.

            Many governors - think Brian Schweizer, for example - would take the opportunity to cement their relationships with their citizenries and stand up proudly for their states, announcing boldly (for example) that the state can administer its own Equal Protection guarantee without reference to the SCOTUS.

            Pawlenty is not presidential material, he's demonstrated that.

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 07:24:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ON THE OTHER HAND..... (4+ / 0-)

              The (Nate) silver lining in all this is that this whole Colemaniac Fiasco could well eliminate Pawlenty from a viable presidential candidacy.

              If he goes all craven to the Colemaniacs, he gets branded as a gutless Fool.

              If he smacks down the Colemaniacs, they remember and piss on him during the GOPer primaries.

              Either way -- effed big time.

              Pawlenty was the sane choice for McCain. He would deservedly have been a GOPer national leader with some arguable electability.

              This change is good for Obama and the Dems generally.

              "Resistance Is Futile" -- for GOPers tied to he Palin/Rush/Prescott Bush/Himmler wing of American authoritarianism.

              Droogie is as Droogie does....

              by vets74 on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:11:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  if pawlenty wrecks himself on this. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                polecat, Clem Yeobright

                he could find himself in a campaign challenge in 2010
                himself,  and the best part is it clears the field for the
                Huckabee/Palin/Romney/Giuliani food fight.

                George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

                by nathguy on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:52:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  The court should refuse this case (7+ / 0-)

    After reading the transcripts, or better yet, after having followed WineRev's diaries. I don't think they will but they should.

  •  Over(-)Due Process (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat, vets74

    I would ad the subtitle BOTCHED REPUBLICAN ABORTION ATTEMPT.

    Does anyone recall the defects in the ballots of the excluded categories?  Did not these 4,400 attempted-voters disenfranchise themselves?

  •  Every Vote Counts: The 2008 Franken election and (0+ / 0-)

    Beyond.

    Look, people judge a book by it's cover, and damned if you are
    going to get people to pick up the book with any of
    those covers.

    George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

    by nathguy on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:27:00 AM PDT

  •  NO LIMIT TO GOPer CREDULITY (4+ / 0-)

    There is no limit -- NONE -- to the craziness for which these folks will take the hook.

    GAWD THIS HAS BEEN FUN....

    1. You have to set up accounts at the rightie web sites.
    1. Take your time... and dream up claims that combine paranoia with bare-minimal truthiness.
    1. Post with spelling errors.
    1. Sit back and watch.
    1. Get brain-drunk

    The Coleman loss sets off the righties, an apparent echo of their hatreds for Obama and Pelosi and the Kennedys.

    There is no limit to how crazy you can go -- and get agreement.

    Don't want to ruin the accounts.... Do your own and enjoy !

    Droogie is as Droogie does....

    by vets74 on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:30:58 AM PDT

  •  Recounting Minnesota is my fav for title (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vets74, BP in NJ, WineRev

    but I'd like to mix in a different subtitle to carry on the pun... maybe something like "Al Franken's challenging journey to Senate"

    This is not a sig-line.

    by Joffan on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:33:25 AM PDT

  •  I like "other" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue71340
    Count Every Vote:  Minnesota shows Florida how to do it right

    And a chapter heading could be Votes and the voting voters who cast them.  And another good chapter is Over-Due Process.

    www.dailykos.com is America's Blog of Record

    by WI Deadhead on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:38:39 AM PDT

  •  It is time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, rja

    to tell Pawlenty:
    Sign the certificate or face a recall effort on the basis of nonfeasance.

    211C.02 GROUNDS.

    The grounds for recall of a judge shall be established by the Supreme Court. A state officer other than a judge may be subject to recall for serious malfeasance or nonfeasance during the term of office in the performance of the duties of the office or conviction during the term of office for a serious crime.
    History:

    1996 c 469 art 2 s 3

    In the battle of meaningless political terms, my assault weapon beats your partial birth abortion. - Eddie Garcia aka kestrel9000

    by kestrel9000 on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:41:39 AM PDT

  •  Column A and Column B....Franken to the Point: (0+ / 0-)

    The Irreverent Internet Saga of the Franken-Coleman Senate Recount

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)

    by MTmofo on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:42:52 AM PDT

  •  Minnesota --- (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xapulin, ratador

    Where all the children but only about half plus 350 adults are above average.

  •  Note on the famous '15 days' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane, Vote For America

    Coleman notes in his Statement of Case that the

    transcrpt has already been delivered to the parties and to the contest court

    so there is no more question about the 15 days.

    And as to this appeal taking precedence over all other matters in the Supreme Court, Vote For America in his diary last night concluded - wrongly, in my view - that it applies here.

    Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

    by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:48:01 AM PDT

    •  VFA didn't conclude anything. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, Vote For America

      VFA presented the relevant statutes, with self-evident application.

      •  He edited the diary leaning in that direction. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        count, Vote For America

        The qualifier of 'state senator or representative' does not seem murky or non-specific or subject to interpretation to me as it does to you and VFA.

        Please make your case, if you like, that U.S.Senator is 'state senator or representative' - I'd like to hear it.

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 09:24:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My reasoning is that § 209.09 says (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rincewind, count, Clem Yeobright

          it is:

          Subd. 2.Statewide offices and questions.

          Section 209.10, subdivision 4, applies to a contest regarding a statewide office, a constitutional amendment, or other question voted on statewide. A copy of the Supreme Court's decision must be forwarded to the contestant and the contestee.

          Source: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/...

          Where 209.10.4 is the precedent article.

          I think this is fairly compelling evidence, but it WOULD be nice to hear another take for verification.

        •  I don't understand. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright, Vote For America

          Obvious is obvious. Why does anyone need make a case for obvious?

          209.09 APPEALS.
          Subd. 2. Statewide offices and questions.

          Section 209.10, subdivision 4, applies to a contest regarding a statewide office, a constitutional amendment, or other question voted on statewide. A copy of the Supreme Court's decision must be forwarded to the contestant and the contestee.

          209.10  STATE LEGISLATIVE OFFICE.
          Subd. 4. Appeal.

          The judge's decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court no later than ten days after its entry in the case of a general election contest or five days after its entry in the case of a primary contest. The record on appeal must be made, certified, and filed in the Supreme Court within 15 days after service of notice of appeal. The appellant shall file in the district court a bond of $500 for the payment of respondent's costs if appellant fails on appeal. The appeal from an election contest relating to the office of state senator or representative takes precedence over all other matters before the Supreme Court. A copy of the decision must be forwarded to the chief clerk of the house of representatives or the secretary of the senate, as appropriate.

          So, in a statewide contest, the decision of a three-judge ECC may be appealed to the Supreme Court etc. In a statewide contest, the bond is $500. In a statewide contest, record on appeal must be made etc. In a statewide contest, appeal takes precedence over all other matters etc.

          Last sentence of 209.10 subd. 4 is hijacked by last sentence of 209.09 subd. 2.

          Would anyone argue that this mashup is invalidated because 209.10 subd. 4 begins with a reference to "The judge's decision" instead of a reference to "The decision of a three-judge panel"? No.

    •  Why wouldn't precedence apply? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      The quotes provided in the referenced diary seemed to support the position. I'm certainly no lawyer so I didn't delve into the linked resource. Could you enlighten me? I've appreciated your expertise in your other comments and would like to understand this.

      Putting the appeal on the fast track can make all the difference in the projected length of the process.

      We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same." Carlos Castaneda

      by BP in NJ on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:55:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No doubt this will be fast-tracked (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rincewind, BP in NJ

        The ECC is a child of the Supreme Court, of course.

        But statutorily absolute precedence, as I read it, is only granted to the Legislators' own elections.

        The provisions of 209.10.4 apply generally to the litigants; the intrusion into the Supreme Court calendar is included only with precise and specific qualifications.

        But I'm with rincewind - we'll know if it gets litigated.

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:22:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  By statewide office... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          does that only apply to State legislators? Why not include US Senators as they are elected by statewide elections?

          If I'm not mistaken this is the object of scrutiny causing different interpretations of the statute as written.

          We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same." Carlos Castaneda

          by BP in NJ on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:41:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  State legislators are not statewide at all. (0+ / 0-)

            The Legislature is most concerned with its own autonomy here. Other offices are just other offices. The MN Courts cannot determine the membership of the MN Legislature, is the principle.

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:55:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  In any case, Franken's motion has been filed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BP in NJ

            and it does not - except briefly in passing - claim the right to priority before the MN Supreme Court, as undoubtedly would be the case if a state legislative seat contest were being appealed.

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:58:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're trying to make a statutory issue out of (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              count, Clem Yeobright, BP in NJ

              something that is both a non-issue and an issue that goes further than a simple reading of a statutory paragraph.

              The MNSC, like all high courts, has the inherent power to govern its own schedule. While the legislature may impose deadlines, jurisdictional limits and certain procedural rules, there are limits on the degree to which statutes can compel the court to arrange its schedule.

              Let's take a hypothetical case of a statewide election contest appeal that clearly meets the conditions of the legislature's putative "requirement" that the court must give that case the highest priority. Next, assume that the court messed around with another matter first (lets say a death penalty matter with the clock ticking) and decide to push the election contest down docket.

              Where's the right and the corresponding remedy? I'll betcha dollars to doughnuts that if a contestant/appellant asserted an absolute right to first priority, the MNSC would declare the legislature's priority scheme unconstitutional on separation of powers grounds, to the extent that first priority was a litigant's right.

              [Now, of course, I don't know that for sure, but I'd take the bet and give away good odds.]

              I don't care how mandatory that statute sounds, the effect of the top-priority "requirement" is no more than advisory to the MNSC.

              The arrangement of a high court's schedule is discretionary.

              And, with respect to this case, always keep in mind this trump card, in the MN Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure:

              Rule 102.  Suspension of Rules
                   In the interest of expediting decision upon any matter before it, or for other good cause shown, the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, except as otherwise provided in Rule 126.02, may suspend the requirements or provisions of these rules on application of a party or on its own motion and may order proceedings in accordance with its direction.

              [Noting that Rule 126.02 would only affect lengthening or contracting the 10-day period for filing the Notice of Appeal.]

              So does the statutory language act as a super-trump to that? I seriously doubt it. And to what court to you go to enforce the so-called right other than the MNSC itself.

              Elias, or whoever wrote Franken's latest motion, knows it isn't a matter of right and is basically asking the MNSC to expedite this case as a matter of discretion. (Reference to the statutory provisions is just supporting artillery fire, that's all.)

              Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

              by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:47:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  erratum: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                shoulda used "contestee/respondent" instead of "contestant/appellant" above, but macht nichts in terms of substance.

                Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

                by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:54:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oops. Just noticed (0+ / 0-)

                  that you have acceded as well to the assertion that 'an election contest relating to the office of state senator or representative' includes a gubernatorial election contest, whereupon you knock this down as without remedy (or something similar). Although I above accept your argument that the Legislature is ultimately whistling in the wind, I think you may find yourself with more regard for the legislative scheme if you read it as narrowly as it is written and treat it as an invocation of the relationship of coequal branches. Maybe?

                  Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                  by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 04:04:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for the commentary. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                count

                As we've noted before, election contests are very dicey from a constitutional Separation of Powers position - they invoke fundamental questions of constitutional relationships. The Minnesota Legislature makes it clear in the succeeding paragraphs of Section 209.10 that in the end the Supreme Court's decision is only advisory with regard to their own elections anyway - they will be the judge of their own membership, and if the SC were to dawdle in defiance of their statutory scheme they can just ignore it totally.

                For other elections - including statewide offices and the federal Congress which has no role in appointing or approving MN Supreme Court justices - the matter is more mundane, and that is why I argue that the Legislature has avoided even suggesting dictating the Supreme Court's calendar in that regard. I have trouble understanding why others don't recognize the fundamental distinction the Legislature is acting upon here.

                Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 03:44:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The fundamental distinction is not clear (0+ / 0-)

                  to all.

                  I'm not sure who the "others" are that you're referring to. If it refers to the DKos community I might have to take offense ;)

                  Personally I need it explained in the way that Chris Matthews sometimes says "Explain it to me as if you were talking to my 84 yr. old grandmother".

                  You clearly have a legal background. While the position and reading of the legal matters at hand may seem cut and dry to you they are not obvious to everyone.

                  If, on the other hand, you are talking about Coleman's attorneys, or partisans of that sort, I have one question. Why are you surprised? They'll twist anything if it helps them attain their goals.

                  We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same." Carlos Castaneda

                  by BP in NJ on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 04:35:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have no legal background and I mean count / VFA (0+ / 0-)

                    and apparently the estimable Terrible Tom, Esq. which fills me with dread.

                    Since posting, I have realized that I am essentially in error in asserting a controlling involvement by the MN Legislature in the selection of Supreme Court justices. They are, in fact, elected, although vacancies may be filled by the governor. Justice Page (Hall of Fame NFL lineman), in fact, was appointed by no governor, having gone directly to the people for his position 'from the get-go'.

                    Here are the remaining paragraphs of Section 209.10:

                    Subd. 5. Legislative hearing, procedure. In hearing a contest, the house or senate shall proceed as follows:
                    (a) At the time appointed, the parties shall be called, and, if they appear, their appearance shall be recorded.
                    (b) If the presiding officer is a party, a speaker pro tem must be elected to preside.
                    (c) The contestant shall submit evidence first, followed by the contestee, and the contestant shall open the argument and close the argument after the contestee has been heard.
                    (d) The vote upon the contest must be viva voce, any member may offer reasons for an intended vote, and a majority of the votes given decides the issue. No party to the contest may vote upon any question relating thereto.
                    (e) The clerk or secretary shall enter the proceedings in the journal.

                    Subd. 6. Not a limitation. This chapter does not limit the constitutional power of the house of representatives and the senate to judge the election returns and eligibility of their own members.

                    The U.S.Supreme Court avoids 'political questions' which require adjudicating between and among its coequal branches, and an election contest is very much a political question. It would be difficult for the Legislature to deny a citizen access to the courts for protection of fundamental rights, but it is also unappealing to invite the courts to judge elections. And its own relationship to the MN courts - at a minimum, it provides their budgets - is the focus of this section and of my fumbling commentary. This relationship, of course, is different from any other relationship considered in this chapter of the law.

                    All the lawyers here know that I have no legal training and they often become exasperated with me, I know. They - especially TT - have been very helpful in illuminating the issues in this matter and I am extremely grateful to them.

                    Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                    by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:00:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, you could've fooled me (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Clem Yeobright

                      And you did fool me. You sound very authoritative and post as I often expect a lawyer would speak. Although that is clearly a prejudice on my part. Your referencing of law completely fooled me.

                      I, too, am grateful for Terrible Tom's explanations. He makes sense out of what is otherwise incomprehensible to me.

                      We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same." Carlos Castaneda

                      by BP in NJ on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:52:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not sure how to respond, but thanks (0+ / 0-)

                        An objective observer would probably recommend you take this experience as a lesson in avoiding being taken in by silver-tongued charlatans; I'm almost certain that is what Allen03 would respond here.

                        That said, I do have a background in political theory and the concept of a constitution and the 'social contract' in general has been a life-long topic of interest to me. Perhaps that is why I read this legislation to be directed quite frankly at the proposition that:

                        If there is a case in which the judicial branch may declare that one individual rather than another should sit in the Legislature, then the judicial branch becomes the supreme branch and the 'coequality' of the three branches is forever breached.

                        To see how this entire 'game' can lead to very different results, I recommend a perusal of Woodrow Wilson's Congressional Government from a time when the national executive was thoroughly dominated by the legislative and the hand-wringing was over whether the President was - as Bill Clinton put it - 'irrelevant'.

                        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                        by Clem Yeobright on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 01:01:22 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  The legislature fumbled needlessly. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Clem Yeobright

                  Couldn't the legislature just as well have written a self-contained 209.09 subd. 2? They easily could have specified exactly what they wanted to specify without handing off to 209.10.

                  •  Ever written a subroutine? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    count

                    'No matter what code is written elsewhere, this will handle all cases in which output is sent to a printer via a parallel port ... fax? What's a fax? Oops!'

                    The concept is that the subroutine can be amended without reference to the (originally 6, now 600) places from which it is called and will continue to provide the expected services ... with just this minor internal tweak which is relevant to all classes that meet these criteria (of which there exists and can exist only one).

                    I have much more sympathy for the legislature and its processes than do you apparently. :)

                    Shalom!

                    Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                    by Clem Yeobright on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 01:10:27 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for the explanation (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                count, Clem Yeobright, TerribleTom

                As a lay person it is sometimes hard to follow some of this legal mumbo jumbo. The nuanced language is often lost to me. You've explained it in a manner that I can grasp. Thanks.

                BTW, love the job that Franken's lawyers have been doing. They've run circles around Coleman's.

                Clearly Coleman bought the meme that Franken was not a serious individual with legitimate opinions and aspirations. After all he's just a comedian. Tell that to Steve Martin; an author, playwright, musician, director, actor and of course, comedian.

                As a result Coleman did not afford Franken the respect that he and his team deserved.

                We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same." Carlos Castaneda

                by BP in NJ on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 03:48:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Statewide office (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright, TerribleTom, BP in NJ
            [209.01 DEFINITIONS. https:/www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes?id=209.01]

            "Subd. 2. Statewide office. For purposes of this chapter "statewide office" means the office of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, state auditor, secretary of state, chief justice or associate justice of the Supreme Court, judge of the Court of Appeals, United States senator, or presidential elector."

    •  I can see both sides (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      and having been burned by the plain language of a statute apparently NOT being so plain to all*, I'm not making any guesses about how the court will read this one.

      *Ref: the 204B.44 petition -- which has NO time limit, and which had been offered as a remedy by both Mark Ritchie and the ECC -- that was nevertheless rejected by the MN-SC as being "untimely".

      One Nation, (still) Under Surveillance

      by rincewind on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:15:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Franken motion to expedite is up! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rincewind, TerribleTom

        here

        It argues that the Legislature intends election contests to be expedited and even cites count's and VFA's favorite line without the qualifier, but then it pleads for expedition for 7 pages rather than demanding it as a statutory right.

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:36:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My bad. It's really just 5 pages. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rincewind

          Interestingly, the Franken team points out that the 10-day clock starting clicking for Norm when the decision was made, not when the judgment was entered, so there was probably one fewer day remaining than we had all assumed.

          All briefs in by May 2, it's asked! It's noted that Sheehan stated publicly that the delay in filing was to allow the briefs to be started, so Franken argues that it is not onerous to ask them to submit the briefs next Monday. LOL

          Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

          by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:51:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Kewl. Thanks for posting, Clem. n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

          by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:57:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  for a title (0+ / 0-)

    wait until after the MNSC ruling and you can use:
    Last Laugh: Lies & Lying Liars meet the MN Supreme Court   but you'd need an OK from Al

  •  so, the actual vote total is cemented, right? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xapulin, Clem Yeobright, vets74

    What does the appeal actually net him, if he wins?

    I mean, all his other shenanigans have LOST him votes.


    Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules. - Walter Sobchak

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:51:45 AM PDT

  •  The Black Knight shall not prevail (13+ / 0-)

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 06:58:11 AM PDT

  •  Sure seems... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    to this laymen that #5 undermines his equal protection argument.

    It isn't those 133 voters fault that their ballots were misplaced.

  •  The bottom line: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    It should take roughly a month to get to the end of this case, and for the certificate of election to be issued for Franken.

    "We had a decisive win... and so I don't think there is any question we have a mandate to move the country in a new direction." Barack Obama

    by pollbuster on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 07:07:27 AM PDT

  •  Title suggestion: (6+ / 0-)

    Norm/Al:  Minnesota chooses a comedian, not a joke

    To say my fate is not tied to your fate is like saying, "Your end of the boat is sinking."--Hugh Downs

    by Dar Nirron on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 07:10:45 AM PDT

  •  Time to Get a New Job, Normie (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopalong

    How many recounts do you want? You lost. Get over it.

    And Republicans thought Gore-Lieberman were sore losers after 2000. Sheesh!

    "It's like they take pride in their own ignorance or something." - B. Obama

    by kefauver on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 07:13:26 AM PDT

  •  I really like last laugh (0+ / 0-)

    it gives the right tone I would buy a book I saw with that title.

  •  title (0+ / 0-)

    Here is a mixing of the first and last choices:

    Recounting Minnesota: Interwebs Musings from a Minnesotan's Wine Cellar.

    or

    Recounting Minnesota: Internet Musings from a Local Wine Seller.

    I think this sums it up better, where the diaries were snarky they were also very informative so the title should reflect that. I guess the Interwebs can be changed to Internet or even Local.

    Just my dos centavos...

    Rogue 5 standing by.

    by rogue5 on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 07:23:40 AM PDT

  •  for the book: timing is everything (0+ / 0-)

    2 places where some copies could move if it is quick-published soon enough after Senator Franken is seated: DemocracyFest and Netroots Nation.
    Plus in Minnesota, I'd imagine.

  •  Ilike the 'Last laugh' title (0+ / 0-)

    because it puts the focus on the contestants, not the bloggers. Sure, there will be a good deal about blogging in your book (I assume), but the main focus should be on the trial, the case, and the principals and their attorneys.

  •  Alternate title & subtitle SNAFU (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rincewind, count

    Situation Norm-Al: Al Franken's Up

  •  My two cents... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    celdd, JimDev, Clem Yeobright, Mr SeeMore

    Being formerly of the book industry, title/jacket are critical points. None from the poll hit me as spot on but I did like the subtitle from the second one.
    You and your editing team have the right three points to drive home but I'd worry less about humor/snark in the title, save that for the summary/inside cover.

    Do NOT go for the general public, go for your target audience, Democrats and some Independents. Broadening the cover appeal may cause some Republicans to pick it up but they will not buy it if they read the summary (a stretch I know, but given they're looking at books we must assume they can actually read). Narrowing the cover appeal puts your book in the hands of more likely buyers. You want as many of your target audience as possible to pick up the book.
    (There'd be different advice for fiction, btw.)

    All that being said, I'd love something in the title that would get Rupublicans every time they saw it on the shelf for years to come, something like 'America Wins' or 'Justice Prevails' or 'Voters Win' but that's just my dark soul wishing to rub it in.

    My in your face options:
    Land of 10,000 Ballots: Senator Franken and the Search for American Justice
    America Wins! Blogging the 2008 Minnesota Senate Contest

    For the less confrontational:
    Land of 10,000 Ballots: Blogging Minnesota's 2008 Senate Contest
    Land of 10,000 Ballots: Blogging the Battle for Minnesota's Senate Seat, 2008

    Oh, and another thank you Winerev for your efforts. Can't do that enough.

  •  Ha! As a former Texan, who had the honor (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mooncat, Clem Yeobright, IL clb, vets74

    and privilege of voting AGAINST GWB and Cornyn (plus KBH & Rick "Good Hair" Perry), I doff (doff!) my hat to you and rec today's installment in honor of this ...

    until John Cornyn grows more than 80 grams of functioning cerebral tissue...

    Ha!

  •  Can't They Just Refuse Cert? (0+ / 0-)

    Everything the ECC did was so public and out in the open... covered exhaustingly in the Minnesota press, etc.  What else is there for a court to hear?  What percentage of appeals to the MNSC actually end up as cases there?

    If spittle & tooth=vigor & youth Bill-O & Savage won't grow any older If wishes & dreams=bitches & beams We'll all live in skyscrapers bu

    by TooFolkGR on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:00:44 AM PDT

    •  No. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      underwhelm, vets74

      Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

      by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:05:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But a no comment Denial has same effect. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        MNSC has nothing to gain getting involved in the arguments.

        That decision from ECC is going to be law school required reading for centuries.

        MN's voting laws and procedures -- about as good as it gets for practical administrative law.

        Droogie is as Droogie does....

        by vets74 on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  FWIW, I disagree. Denial does not have (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rincewind, Clem Yeobright, vets74

          the same effect.

          In the first place, this isn't a discretionary appeal, so the issue of granting or denying cert is off the table in this case. It is a first appeal taken as a matter of right. The MNSC must adjudicate the appeal, and cannot simply deny hearing it.

          But even if that were not the case, denial of cert does NOT have the same precedential effect as an explicit affirmation. When cert is denied by a court of last resort (typically a "supreme court"), it has the effect of saying that the case was litigated in full, with the final result being that ordered by the next lower court. While the appearance of reliability as precedence may be enhanced, that's not the equivalent of a supreme court opinion and the ruling is only binding within the scope of the next lower court, not the breadth of the supreme court.

          Thus, to use a federal example, if SCOTUS denies cert in a case decided by, say, the 4th Circuit, the Court of Appeals ruling is only binding precedent in the 4th Circuit--not all the circuits nationwide. While the 4th Circuit's holdings may become stronger for use in arguments as collateral precedent in the other circuits (because SCOTUS chose not to overrule it), that's not quite the same as a nationwide precedent.

          To my knowledge, neither SCOTUS nor any state supreme court has ever opined that "every ruling we choose not to hear is legally correct as written."

          On the contrary, from time to time, courts of last resort have opined about this issue in dicta. One thing that can happen, according to the courts, is that a court may choose to deny cert because, although portions of the legal holdings may be wrong, the higher court would have reached the same result with slightly different legal principles.

          Also, when there is tension in the case law (e.g., where lower court rulings are in disagreement), the high court sometimes waits for a particular case to ripen--one that provides the best procedural posture and set of facts to settle the legal principle in conflict. If denying cert on other cases in the meantime does not create an injustice (e.g., because the result would be substantially the same), there's no harm and no foul and no tangential "precedent" is set.

          Admitedly, this is largely an academic exercise but the cases studied by law students for generations are seldom trial court rulings where certiorari was merely denied. Unless the holdings are very widely adopted by a majority of courts, such cases have very little precedential value.

          Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

          by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 09:56:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  FWIW ::: Yes, indeed. (0+ / 0-)

            Still for this situation, while explicit Denial does affirm the ECC precedent and give it MNSC approval, you'd have to think that this ECC decision would still apply to later ECC's if a no-cert result was possible.

            There are no differing MN ECC's to be sorted out.

            And, despite the ongoing winerevelry, there's no MN 9th Circuit for the usual jollies....

            Droogie is as Droogie does....

            by vets74 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 04:08:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I don't like any of the options (0+ / 0-)

    on your marketing survey poll

  •  For Any Lawyer Out There... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    Can Franken sue and make Coleman pay all his recount fees?

      Franken Owes Over 1.3 Million For Recount

    •  IANAL but (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rincewind, celdd, Clem Yeobright, elwior

      Franken could file a motion for sanctions if he thought he could prove Coleman was on the wrong side of 549.211 SANCTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS. The important part is

      Subd. 2.Effect of acknowledgment.By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

      (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

      (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

      (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

      (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

      •  Thought we decided sanctions apply to attys (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        count

        and wouldn't affect Coleman at all ...

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:36:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who is we? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright, elwior

          Subd. 3. Sanctions may be imposed. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision 2 has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions in this section, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision 2 or are responsible for the violation.

          •  I'm going out on a limb (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            count

            and guessing that 'parties' here refers to the 'unrepresented parties' acknowledged in subd.2, but if you think sanctions can be applied to a represented principal in a case, go for it!

            Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

            by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:45:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whether a party be represented or not, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clem Yeobright, elwior

              note

              parties that have violated subdivision 2

              Anybody can play.

              •  but represented principals can NOT violate (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                count

                subd. 2, don't you agree?

                Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 09:35:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gosh, Clem. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Clem Yeobright, TerribleTom

                  No, I don't agree.

                  The first paragraph of subd. 2 merely recognizes that any filing is submitted by either an attorney or someone who is not represented by an attorney. Common sense. That's all it says.

                  If the intent is to deter frivolous, dilatory, or harassing actions, the statute must be applicable not only to attorneys, but to the people who hire them. After all, an attorney might not know the intent of his boss, the attorney is just doing a job. That's why:

                  Subdivision 1. Acknowledgment required. The parties by their attorneys in a civil action shall attach to and make a part of the pleading, written motions, and papers served on the opposite party or parties a signed acknowledgment stating that the parties acknowledge that sanctions may be imposed under this section.

                •  Nope, there's definite case law (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rincewind, count, Clem Yeobright

                  on this with respect to the application of FRCP Rule 11 (the federal rule on which the MN rule is modelled).

                  First, pro se litigants stand in the same shoes as attorneys with respect to attorney sanctions although, as a matter of practice, the courts sometimes lean over backwards to give them a break when "they know not what they do." In the case of an unrepresented party, the party is both attorney-equivalent and party.

                  I'd assume (but don't know for certain) that MN law doesn't depart far from FRD holdings.

                  In the case of a represented party, sanctions can be imposed on the attorney or the party or both. It depends on the degree to which the party is complicit versus the degree to which the behavior is strictly attorney misconduct. Thus, a party who is obviously pressing and egging on his or her attorney to pursue a frivilous claim or a dilatory tactic designed to harrass the other party can end up on the hook to pay sanctions.

                  Where sanctions are assessed only on the attorney, the represented party is not obligated to pay and the attorney cannot ethically bill his client for the sanctions.

                  Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

                  by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:11:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So, Franken can seek sanctions against Coleman? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    count

                    Is that the preferred route to seeking compensation for his attorneys' fees?

                    Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                    by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:18:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's a little late in the game for that. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rincewind, count, Clem Yeobright

                      And, besides, while we observers may groan and bellyache about this lawsuit--which went down in flames before the ECC--it isn't even close to being a frivilous lawsuit of the sort that's subject to general sanctions shifting all of the attorneys' fees from loser to winner. That is very, very rare.

                      The "preferred route"--at least the normal route--is that, win or lose, you eat your own attorney's fees because that's the "American System".

                      Elias, Hamilton, Lillehaug and their client know this. I'm sure that is why you don't see their motion for general sanctions on the docket.

                      (They believe in arguing real law, right? It's Ben Ginsberg who makes up law in the hall.)

                      Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

                      by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:42:54 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  But, given different facts, sanctions would be (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        count

                        the procedural route for redress in a case of demonstrably frivolous and malicious litigation?

                        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

                        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:47:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Given different facts, a lot of things could be (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          rincewind, Clem Yeobright

                          different.

                          Sanctions is one route, yes. But, given different facts, there are others as well.

                          For instance, there's a tort theory called "abuse of process" under which you can sue someone for suing you--even if they drop the case--if you can prove that the reason they sued you was for some nefarious reason other than stated claims of the lawsuit itself.

                          Hmmm, trying to think of an example. OK, let's say someone is trying to get you to vote your stock a particular way at a corporate stockholders meeting. To pressure you, they sue you for zoning violations at your beach house (something quite unrelated). The implied threat (which both of you get quite clearly behind the scenes) is this: If you'll vote your stock the way they want, they'll drop the suit, which is going to cost you a lot of $$$ in attorney fees.

                          This sort of thing is potentially actionable in a lawsuit (and could recover all costs, attorneys fees and then some) for abusing the judicial process to achieve an end other than the stated claims brought.

                          So if you want a really, really tinfoil-hat theory, Franken could sue Coleman for abuse of process, alleging that Coleman's real purpose was to get GOP supporters to contribute to his campaign fund and to destroy Franken's credibility. The suit would have to allege and prove that no part of the suit was intended to change the result of the election.

                          So, could Franken sue? Yeah, but the case would be laughable. Not only would it be dead on arrival, but that suit, in itself, might be subject to sanctions.

                          I really don't know why we need to find absolutes at each and every juncture of this election contest.

                          There ain't gonna be broad sanctions for attorneys' fees here. You can sue anyone for just about anything, but it just ain't gonna happen.

                          Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

                          by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:18:15 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  We would have seen it in trial court already. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        count, Clem Yeobright

        Seems to me the time for filing for trial court sanctions is long past.  Even a request for sanctions for a frivolous appeal is probably too late.

        Watch the video of Beck with the sound off. His grimaces, tics, shrugs, shit-eating grins and hand-waving convey his instability better than his words.

        by Inland on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 09:04:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  BTW, how long before Coleman is indicted? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, US AG

    by Mr SeeMore on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:34:52 AM PDT

  •  I like the... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryru

    last choice mainly because it gets "Minnesota" and the "recount" concept into the title.  I would like the subtitle to be informative(as it is) and more clever/funny(which it is not).  Keep up the great work WineRev, today's installment was a great welcome home(fix?) after three days of detox(no Internet) while attending the marathon in Boston where everyone we met was super friendly--whatever happened to the people who lived there when we lived there 40 years ago?

    •  They all moved out to the suburbs (0+ / 0-)

      or retired to Cape Cod. The population of Boston has undergone a huge shift in the past 20 years.
      Glad you had a good time celebrating Patriot's Day - only in Massachusetts and Maine!

  •  One suggestion! (0+ / 0-)

    Though I realize the time is past for throwing in anything but my vote.

    I voted for the "Last Laugh" option, but I think the subtitle should be "How the citizens of Minnesota stopped Norm Coleman's Republicans from Killing Democracy."

  •  "The Winter of Coleman's Discontent" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

                            ^
                (...and Spring, and...)

    Awe nevermind, your titles are far better.

  •  4400 Wasn't that a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rincewind, count

    TV Show. It sounds like a made up number like 57 communists.

    Dear GOP&Conservatives If all you have to offer are Cliches and Hyperbole then STFU. Thanks XOXOXO

    by JML9999 on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 09:22:12 AM PDT

  •  Going on with this obvious nonsense (0+ / 0-)

    is a very poor investment for the Gross Obfuscating Peabrains. Al will be seated before the big issue votes come around, and the only thing they'll get is the chance to show what low-lives they are.

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 09:58:08 AM PDT

  •  Which Justices will recuse themselves? (0+ / 0-)

    I believe two sat on canvasing board, I thought I read that one had donated to Coleman's campaign.  I assume all these will be recusing themselves from the consideration of the appeal.  Can someone post which ones these are?

    •  my WAG (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, TerribleTom, BP in NJ

      Chief Justice Magnuson and Assoc Justice (G Barry) Anderson will (continue to) recuse themselves per their participation on the canvassing board; and Assoc Justice Dietzen won't recuse himself (maybe on the flimsy reed that his contributions to Coleman occurred before he was appointed to the bench?), although I think he should.

      One Nation, (still) Under Surveillance

      by rincewind on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:06:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, he said he wouldn't recuse himself? (0+ / 0-)

        Assoc Justice Dietzen, has said he won't recuse himself? Even though he has donated to Coleman's campaign?  I don't see how a justice could do this.  If there is any question of impartiality, isn't it expected that they would? This seems foolish, if he wants a final ruling to be viewed as totally impartial. And, if he is going in with the assumption that Franken will win and the lower courts findings will be upheld, doesn't that show a lack of impartiality?  I have to say that even the scent of impartial behavior in a Supreme Court Justice, doesn't seem like the right way to go.  To me it seems like a no win for him to stay on this case.

  •  Franken to the point: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    Flogging the Battle for Minnesota's Senate Seat, 2008

    Says it better.

  •  if you really want to get rid of Coleman (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    you have to inflict pain on the Republican party. The Democratic party should have some kind of fundraiser whereby rich Democratic donors pledge a certain amount of money to unseating entrenched (and influential) Republican Senators in their next election for each day that Norm Coleman continues this charade. These are the people that are keeping this going and if they start to see the war chests of their future competitors getting built up due to Norm Coleman's obstinance they will call it off and force him to step aside.

    Now, people had lost their fear. From that moment I knew we would win. - Oscar Olivera

    by Josh Prophet on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 12:56:56 PM PDT

  •  Minneapolis 132? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    When did the Minneapolis 133 become the 132? I thought it was a misprint last time, but now I've seen it twice I'm starting to doubt my grasp on the case ;)

    --
    Paper Ballots Counted By People!

    by Rupert on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:15:43 PM PDT

    •  No, you're not losing your grasp... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rupert

      Throughout much of the trial, the Franken side used the number 132 and Coleman claimed 133, although in mid-trial, it appeared that Franken used both numbers at one time or another.

      When you hear "132" it's probably attributable to something said or written by F-Camp. Ditto the other way around.

      Because the court had to rule on a claim brought by Coleman, I believe the court used "133" in denying the claim. However, the court ruled that he did not prove the claim so that does nothing to imply that the number was really 133.

      They are, after all, missing ballots.

      Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: the conscientious historian will correct these defects. -Herodotus

      by TerribleTom on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 02:56:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ummm, not exactly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rupert

        Para 118 on page 20 of the final order:

        ... 2,028 ballots were cast ... only 1,896 ... were available for the recount ...

        Ignorance isn't exactly bliss but some things are better known when they are unknown to start with and pieced together on the way. - WineRev

        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 03:53:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  moving forward indeed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    Or as the Repubs seem fond of, trying to figure out if you want to move backward.

    Direct link to the quote mentioned at the end of the good Rev's wonderful blog:
    MN Progresssive Project:Blast from the past with Coleman attorney Ben Ginsburg

    It's well worth the read, my friends.

    Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do. - James Harvey Robinson

    by pi1304 on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:18:44 PM PDT

  •  I like the following combination: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    Last Laugh: The Irreverent, On-Line Saga of the Minnesota Senate Recount

    "...malt does more than Milton can/To justify God's ways to man." --A.E. Housman

    by Dragon5616 on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:19:24 PM PDT

MoDem, Jeff in CA, JWC, buffalo soldier, underwhelm, Jay, Finn, Phoenix Woman, murphy, teacherken, kate mckinnon, kaleidescope, alisonk, nicolemm, mattman, PeterHug, Emerson, tommurphy, DDinIND, rincewind, redlief, MsSpentyouth, donna in evanston, ericy, shayera, sam3am, mslat27, celdd, polecat, freelunch, acuppajo, WI Deadhead, marjo, TexasLiberal, MMinNY, exNYinTX, Noah Jenda, raines, Silvan Elf, Dazy, Rupert, khloemi, javelina, pollbuster, sgilman, slangist, nargel, egarratt, Siusaidh, hopeful, wader, Redfire, NMRed, JimDev, dangoch, danthrax, pat bunny, LegacyLDad, count, peterj911, tomjones, Schwede, AaronBa, furi kuri, snowbird42, sawgrass727, rogue5, hopalong, Julie Gulden, luvmovies2000, Dirk McQuigley, vcmvo2, joanneleon, radarlady, IntotheAbyss, enough, revbludge, waitingforvizzini, KnotIookin, panicbean, kefauver, Clem Yeobright, Brooke In Seattle, orson, Pam from Calif, Phil S 33, blue jersey mom, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, FightTheFuture, EeDan, JanF, Alan Arizona, Sister Havana, Reptile, Showman, SoniaS, danmac, tommymet, BlueInARedState, Ellicatt, victoria2dc, ceriboo, MTmofo, 123frenchwine, hideinplainsight, sullynyc, Eloise, tecampbell, Lashe, DtheO, pi1304, bleeding heart, ER Doc, llbear, Turbonerd, IL clb, nicejoest, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, djalix976, liberalpercy, Compostings, Granny Doc, xenopus17, illusionmajik, b3citizen, NonnyO, clinging to hope, bear83, Ken in MN, dogdad, moodyinsavannah, vets74, crodri, Allogenes, blue71340, HeartlandLiberal, Jimdotz, DWG, TerribleTom, Seneca Doane, Ken in Tex, Bridge Master, cececville, JML9999, Cjagmoore, VA Breeze, Send Rahm a Cheesecake, MKinTN, JoeW, ratador, Blackacre, OleHippieChick, Youffraita, binkaroni, Its any one guess, pamelabrown, Uncle Bob, HoosierDeb, lgcap, shortgirl, vmdairy, lostboyjim, JBL55, Fiddlegirl, malibu1964, MufsMom, rsmpdx, Calouste, classico, Magick Maven, juca, gdwtch52, cantelow, DemocraticOz, be the change you seek, WiseFerret, Partisan Progressive, velvet blasphemy, WobegonGal, DefendOurConstitution, Scan, Phlogiston Junkie, ProgressiveTokyo, followyourbliss, ThinkerT, soms, MooseHB, obscuresportsquarterly, IreGyre, XNeeOhCon, stevenwag, Lacy LaPlante, RoCali, 57andFemale, romwriter, PoliticalJunkessa, ArthurPoet, Andhakari, ravenlore, Dragon5616, JDog42, vcthree, Oldengrey, davespicer, Edge PA, jpmassar, Leftovers, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, Phaseshift360, p gorden lippy, Vacationland, dditt, BP in NJ, freewilly, candysroom, fidellio, barbvt2008, wvmom, 2questions, ItsSimpleSimon, sharonsz, pateTX, rja, ericlewis0, DudleyMason, sidious666, nampa45, BrowniesAreGood, kktlaw, ebbet, yankeedevil, StellaRay, sushideluxe, blueinmn, Word Alchemy, 4JenTandT, Oregon Progressive Dem, Britkid, deweysmom, mniowan, blueash, JWK, SusanL143, MRA NY, tenzen, antooo, gnbhull, Nola Sue, Aquagranny911, Hybridity, Daman09, earljellicoe, OnBostonHarbor, Archie2227, SageHagRN, Dbug, Deva Royal

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site