In Senate trial, Coleman turns to Bush v. Gore

[Tab]

Source: Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The success of Norm Coleman's lawsuit to reclaim his Senate seat could depend on how willing the trial judges are to find a precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from another messy, political charged election battle: Bush v. Gore.

Republican Coleman's greatest hope to overtake Democrat Al Franken's 225-vote lead is his argument that about 11,000 rejected absentee ballots should be given another look by the three judges hearing the case. His lawyers argue that many were rejected while other ballots with similar mistakes were counted, that standards were applied differently from county to county in violation of the constitutional standard of equal protection.

"It's a long shot," said Jan Baran, a Washington election attorney and former general counsel to the Republican National Committee. "But it worked for Bush v. Gore."

The circumstances are different, but Coleman's effort strikes the same legal notes as the Supreme Court lawsuit that handed George W. Bush a victory in Florida and put him in the White House. In that case, Bush's lawyers got the Supreme Court to agree that Al Gore's push to recount ballots in four Florida counties would have resulted in

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/minnesota_senate_bush_v_gore

[road2000]

1. I have a lot of trouble believing this.

"It's a long shot," said Jan Baran, a Washington election attorney and former general counsel to the Republican National Committee. "But it worked for Bush v. Gore."

Yeah. It worked for Bush.

I thought the Bush v. Gore misruling stipulated that the case was never to be used as a precedent.

[Politicalboi]

2. Only if it works for

Repubicans.

[jaysunb]

5. LOL !

so true....

[SpiralHawk]

25. You got it, boi - Republicon Homelanders are 'special'

Unlike the American people, Homelanders have a WIDE STANCE on morality and legality.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. That is what I thought also..It was specifically noted that the decision was NOT

to be used as precedent for any future decisions. Just another part of that whole farce that made no sense at all.

[cosmicone]

24. Where are our "Sore-Loserman" crowds?

Why are we not bringing political pressure on Coleman with massive demonstrations?

[truth2power]

9. I was just going to post that. Stipulation was

only to apply to Bush v. Gore, not prededent.

I suppose they want their cake and eat it too.

[liberal N proud]

3. The results of that stolen election should be enough to scare any judge

That is if he has his head on straight

[w4rma]

4. More frivolous lawsuits from Republicans. When are the state courts going to realize they will on

forever unless they end them?

[madrchsod]

6. did`t the court say they would never do what they did again..

or they would`t even consider the issue?

[Solly Mack]

7. Snort

Fuckers

(The Bogus 5)

[underpants]

10. In Senate trial, Coleman turns to Bush v. Gore (could end up back at US SC)

Source: AP

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — The success of Norm Coleman's lawsuit to reclaim his Senate seat could depend on how willing the trial judges are to find a precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from another messy, political charged election battle: Bush v. Gore.

"As part of this process, we have seen that different counties treated the same ballots differently so that voters whose votes counted in one county were rejected in another county," said Ben Ginsberg, a Coleman attorney who was a key member of Bush's Florida legal team in 2000. "In order to achieve equal protection under the law and enfranchise as many people as possible, we need to count all similarly situated ballots."

The recount numbers have been certified by the state Canvassing Board. Franken's lawyers argue that to undo that, the judges would have to find there was an unacceptably high level of error throughout the election and recount process.

The judges are expected to issue rulings as early as this week that could give a better idea of which approach they'll favor. If Coleman loses his effort for a wide review and his lawsuit fails, his argument seems tailor-made for a federal court appeal.

And that could ultimately give the Supreme Court a chance to finally revisit its Bush v. Gore decision.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRKohBeH_EuznWVAA7G61NczwtWgD96299S00

---

Two other opinions from legal professors at link

Here is Franken's recount brief
http://blog.alfranken.com/2009/01/29/update-on-norm-coleman%E2%80%99s-lawsuit-to-overturn-the-election-results/#more-849

and this is Coleman's (to be fair)
http://www.colemanforsenate.com/rejected-absentee-ballots

[drmeow]

11. Jesus I wish Coleman would just

GO AWAY.

[Writer]

12. I fucking hope that precedent gets overturned. n/t

[annabanana]

13. Gee! I seem to remember that that case was SPECIFICALLY NOT

to ever be used as precedence. Does anyone else remember that?

[underpants]

15. That is what I remember. That itself was precedent

judicial review has a built in safety from erratic judgments in that they become precedent. There is not supposed to be "only for this case" deals but Bush v. Gore specifically WAS that and the SC stated such.

Dead on anna

[Vincardog]

16. Bingo that illegal decision was SPECIFICALLY NOT to ever be used as precedence.

[JDPriestly]

20. Yes! I recall that the SC stated that it should not be used as a precedent.

[riderinthestorm]

21. Pandora's Box. SCOTUS opened it, and even though they may (desperately)

want that box to stay shut, there's no way in hell it will.

Elections nowadays are big biz. Bush V. Gore is/was enormously influential and there's no way it can just sit out there like a lonely planet. SCOTUS can argue till the cows come home that it's a one-time thang, but expect that ruling to come back biting (their) asses again (and again, and again and....).

Coleman's just the first to assault the wall. Since Bush V. Gore is still too recent, too raw, too many justices still sitting - I expect an instantaneous swat-down of the case when it comes before them. But this is just the first of many to come imho.

We've not heard the last of it. No way.

[Hokie]

14. The Senate has final say

I don't see a Democratic Senate letting the SCOTUS get away with using Bush v Gore to award the seat to Coleman.

[scytherius]

17. SCOTUS was very clear

Bush v. Gore only applied to Bush v Gore. It is not to be used as precedent.

And unless the MN Court makes a ruling on a federal issue, there is no way even this SCOTUS will take the case. And even if it is a Fed question (it won't be) I still doubt they would take it.

[janet118]

26. Excerpt from Bush v. Gore decision re precedence

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

[JDPriestly]

19. But different counties treated different but similar votes differently

in the original count that set off the recount. If they count again, there will still be inconsistencies. That is the nature of counting votes unfortunately. The recount should have assured that every vote was separately considered. Weren't Republicans represented in each county as the recounts were being done? Shouldn't the Republicans have raised their issues while the recounts were taking place?

[Jefferson23]

18. Desperate and pathetic, just like Bush.

[McCamy Taylor]

22. But the SCOTUS said that could not be used as a precedent.....

[DRoseDARs]

23. Once a motherfucker, always fucking their mother...

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/regarding-motherfuckers-republican.html

[deutsey]

27. Dumbasses. Didn't the SC say that this wasn't a precedent?

It was a one-time deal.

I seem to recall that that was one of the "oddities" of the decision.

[Mister Ed]

28. In Bush v. Gore, the argument was that no statewide standard existed in the Florida recount

Minnesota has very specific statewide standards, and those standards were applied - statewide.