Even Franken couldn't have written an ending this funny. Justices grill Coleman attorney.

grantcart

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-01-09 03:38 PM
Original message

Even Franken couldn't have written an ending this funny. Justices grill Coleman attorney.

Edited on Mon Jun-01-09 04:00 PM by grantcart

Leave it to Al to be the straight man for one of the funniest Court Hearings on an election case.

You can almost hear the Justices minds saying "Evidence? You call this Evidence?".

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/minnesota-supremes-grill-coleman-lawyer-on-lack-of-evidence.php

You know people are having fun when they have to use Bush vs. Gore and they realize that doing so makes them look stupid:

Towards the end of his initial argument period, Friedberg referred back to Bush v. Gore -- which he unbelievably prefaced by saying, "And I hesitate to use this case for anything," despite the fact that his side has used that case for just about everything. Friedberg said that in Bush v. Gore, it was enough to show arbitrary treatment of ballots between Broward County and Palm Beach County.

(You can almost hear Gene Wilder's charachter in Blazing Saddles "you must, you must")

But the real fun in Coleman's last gasp at playing a Senator came not from Coleman's hired gun but from the Justices who couldn't believe what they were hearing:

At one point, Justice Christopher Dietzen went over Team Coleman's written offers of proof -- filings of proposed evidence that an attorney makes when a trial court won't admit it as official evidence, but he wants to preserve it for future appeals. "I've never seen an offer of proof like this," said Dietzen, complaining that the offers didn't actually identify specific potential witnesses or what their presumed evidence would have been been -- only continued arguments that "a substantial number" of ballots exist. Dietzen added that "the rules of evidence, the rules of civil procedure apply. Now why is this offer of proof not inadequate, in that we don't have admissible evidence that can show whether you've met your burden?"

Now here is the funny part - Dietzen is a die hard Republican who contributed to Coleman's campaign, lol and he can't believe the crap they came up with.

But Dietzen didn't have all the fun. Justices Anderson, Gildea and Meyer also couldn't believe in the lack of evidence that they were offering as a proof to their claims;

Justice Paul Anderson, who was appointed to the court in 1994 by then-Republican Gov. Arne Carlson , also said he was "very bothered" by the offer of proof. "It says you will obtain sufficient evidence," Anderson complained, then characterizing it as "basically just lists, lists of names" on ballots, but no details about the underlying stories of those ballots.

Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, a Pawlenty appointee widely viewed as a conservative, also asked Friedberg about the lack of evidence, to which Friedberg replied that the court dismissed the Coleman camp's central claim as irrelevant -- that counties across the state applied different standards in admitting or rejecting absentee ballots. "They clearly excluded evidence," said Friedberg, which is the evidence they truly needed to prove their case.

Justice Helen Meyer, an appointee of the Independence Party's Gov. Jesse Ventura , who had previously donated to the late Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone and is viewed as a moderate on the bench, asked Friedberg why he did not compile evidence from all counties, as opposed to about two dozen, to prove their case about unequal treatment . "You're asking us to presume that, based on the evidence of a sampling of counties," said Meyer.

I guess the Democrats on the Court were too convulsed with laughter to ask any questions.

Friedberg always the trooper ended playing it straight, you can almost hear the giggles:

"We've made our case," he said forcefully. "You can't make it any better than that!"

Justice Anderson didn't seem to appreciate the humor involved:

Justice Anderson shot back. "I still have problems with your saying we're a substantial compliance state," Anderson said. "And as loud as you speak on this issue there's language I don't think you can overcome."

I wonder if when they deliver their opinion the Justices will also have a laugh track.