When will Al Franken be seated? This is getting ridiculous.

[Fluffdaddy]

We need his vote

[AndyTiedye]

1. They Are Going to Open 5000 Ballots. At A Rate of 2 Per Day…

…that should take about 20 years.

[bdamomma]

2. coleman is being such an a$$hole.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. add the word "always" and your post would be perfect.

[Chulanowa]

3. What's the deal?

We could seat a president who didn't win an election, but seating a senator who did is just too much to ask?

[jgraz]

4. The Dems could seat him tomorrow if they had a spine.

Of course, then they might be forced to actually DO something instead of whine about the Republicans.

[stillcool]

9. If it's in the courts,

how do the Democrats in the state government intervene?

[jgraz]

11. The US Senate Dems can just seat him

Let the 'Pugs sue.

[stillcool]

15. Did the State certify him?

[jgraz]

17. Not pertinent to the discussion. They seated Burris before he was certified.

The Senate has the right to determine their own membership. They should seat Franken immediately and let the Pugs sue if they don't like it.

[stillcool]

18. Burris was "appointed"

by the Governor of his state, according to the rules of that state. There is no winner in the Minnesota elections yet, so the United States Senate, according to you, could appoint anyone to fill that seat?

[jgraz]

19. No, they couldn't "appoint" anyone. But they could *seat* anyone.

In order to get them out, the 'Pugs would have to sue. The Dems might lose that lawsuit but in the meantime, they have another vote.

[tritsofme]

20. I don't think it is as easy as you make it out to be.

The minority could probably use procedural maneuvers to stop him from being seated.

Fully seating Franken might enrage those childish Republicans so much that they throw a huge temper tantrum and shut down Senate business.

That's why no one "in the know" if you will, is screaming to have him seated right now.

[stillcool]

21. The election is in dispute...

you can not have a winner without a winner, and no one but the state has the power to 'seat' anyone.

[1776Forever]

5. Senate recount trial resumes: Judges ponder Franken objection

Senate recount trial resumes: Judges ponder Franken objection

A Dakota County official testified that some absentee ballots were rejected in error.

By PAT DOYLE and KEVIN DUCHSCHERE, Star Tribune staff writers

Last update: February 10, 2009 -

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/39314392.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

They were bad at first glance.

But numerous absentee ballots got a new image Monday, when a Dakota County official testified that they were probably rejected by mistake.

In several instances, local elections officials neglected to send a voter-registration application to someone who needed one, he said. Other times, officials rejected ballots because voters didn't include a completed application -- although the voters were already registered and didn't need one.

"This appears to be a mistake," said Dakota County Elections Manager Kevin Boyle, when asked about one registered-but-rejected voter.

(snip)

Also Monday, the lawyers for both sides met with the judges during the lunch hour after District Judge Kurt Marben said they needed to discuss "a more expedient way" to handle evidence. Afterward, both sides declined to discuss the meeting.

The talks followed an objection by Franken lawyer David Lillehaug to the way Coleman's side is disclosing evidence in the trial. He said Coleman's lawyers had failed to disclose specific details to Franken's side about why ballots were wrongly rejected. Lillehaug said a lack of information could prolong the trial, inviting "a tedious page by page review of a thick stack of ballot envelopes," and asked the panel to restrain Coleman from introducing more exhibits without providing a better explanation for them. The panel denied the motion, and the Coleman legal team accused Lillehaug of "grandstanding."

[Fluffdaddy]

7. You read my mind. thanks for the info

[Fluffdaddy]

6. Has the court case even started yet............This been going on forever

With the bills coming up, we going to need Franken's 59th vote more then ever. And the GOP knows this.

[bluestateguy]

8. Remind every Republican that you know that Al Gore conceded on December 13

Norm Coleman has now dragged this out for two months longer than Gore. Make sure every Republican you know who whined about Gore in 2000 knows that.

[rateyes]

12. Well, since Harry Reid said he was going to try and seat him sooner rather than later...

count on it being later.

[jgraz]

13. Count on it being never

Droopy Harry won't lift a finger on this. He'll let it play out in the courts even if it costs us on filibuster votes.

[backscatter712]

14. I read something last night on HuffPo that said the judges ordered "streamlining" of the process.

They lost patience with the drip-drip pace that Coleman was doing to string them along, challenging or presenting ballots to the court one at a time, so they ordered Coleman to knock that shit off.

It'll probably take a couple more weeks, but I suspect that Al Franken will be seated sooner rather than later.

[Junkdrawer]

16. 2013. Next question. n/t

[Fluffdaddy]

22. Anything new on this?