MN-Sen: Franken poised to win. Again

[mucifer]

by kos
Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 11:02:03 AM PDT

The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on sore-loser Norm Coleman's efforts to overthrow the will of the voters just because he wants to stay in office. It didn't go well for him, per election lawyer Rick Hasen:

1. It is always dangerous to guess how a court is going to come out based upon oral argument. But there's good reason here to believe that the state Supreme Court Justices went into this with their minds made up: this case has been expedited pursuant to state law, and they've had two weeks (including three weekends) to think about how to decide this case based upon the briefs. They likely had a draft opinion or set of opinions in front of them. So this oral argument may be more of a tip off than most.

2. There's no question that Coleman's side got much tougher question than Franken's side, and based upon oral argument I would not be surprised to see a unanimous decision in favor of Franken in a relatively short time frame (within two weeks--maybe sooner). I counted at least three of the five Justices who were much more willing to accept Franken's arguments than Coleman's arguments, and who asked Coleman's side much more difficult questions <...>



Things look so poorly for Coleman, in fact, that the local CBS news affiliate was unable to find a single legal expert who could spin on behalf of the former senator.

Furthermore, I have been unable to find any independent expert who believes Coleman will win in the Minnesota Supreme Court. In fact, I have asked the Coleman camp if they know of any expert and they not given me any names.

The thing about experts is that they can, of course, be wrong. But when they all say the same thing you have to wonder.

We should have a ruling in short order, and last we heard, Republicans were still claiming they'd appeal a loss to the federal courts. But will Gov. Tim Pawlenty refuse to issue a certificate of election, even if his state's highest court orders him to do it? He could drag his feet and hope that Coleman's people get an injunction from a federal court, but the odds of that happening are fairly slim.

Bill O'Reilly's worst nightmare is about to become reality. All the foot dragging and dishonest arguments and bullshit legal filings are about to come to a close, and Democrats will finally have their 60th seat in the U.S. Senate.

http://kos.dailykos.com/

[Dappleganger]

1. Stick a fork in him, he's done.

[rockymountaindem]

2. Can Coleman drag this into federal court?

If he can, I'm sure he will.

[KamaAina]

4. But, but, but, conservatives hate people taking their issues to Federal court!

:eyes:

Doesn't matter. Under MN election law, the issue is settled after it goes through the MN courts. And it's about to. Say Hello to Sen. Al Franken.

[peacetalksforall]

8. It's Pawlenty. The talk is he wants to be President If he says no to certification, he will

weakly win 20-27% of the nation cuz Coleman's lawyer says there is no fraud claim. There is no scandal here except for the motive - stop Franken from voting in the Senate, but no one in the court room can tell it like it is.

Pawlenty will lose support bigtime. There will be pleny of time to read some books or articles about this pursuit against Franken, Democrats, and Obama. There may even be time to see a movie or documentary about this. Not good for Pawlenty. But he is really stubborn.

P.S., there was a scene in the hearing where Colemans' lawyers claimed something, but presented no data. Talk about a vacumn. The only thing that could roll through a person's brain is that they decided to get by without evidence, witnesses =- because of cost cutting.

[Kablooie]

10. Of COURSE he will! They know they can't win, but they can still filibuster if Franken can't vote.

[KamaAina]

3. What do you mean, "stay in office", Kemo Sabe?

Former Sen. Coleman tried to hold on to his Senate office after his term expired. The Senate Rules Committee, however, was having none of it, and they gave him the boot. :nopity:

[wroberts189]

5. Thx for the info. knr

[wellstone dem]

6. I watched the arguments and agree

it almost felt like the justices were struggling to think of tough questions for Franken's lawyer so that they looked fair. Most of the questions for Coleman's lawyer were "where is that in the record?" questions which bode very poorly for that side. It was like I had been saying all along, "they didn't make a record" came to fruition.

[azmouse]

7. k&r

[Kablooie]

9. Until Franken actually can vote, the GOP is winning. They can still filibuster.

The whole point is to keep him out until the next election.

And the might be able to do that.