Cornyn: I’ll Support Norm Coleman if He Appeals to the Supreme Court

[babylonsister]

http://washingtonindependent.com/48351/cornyn-ill-support-norm-coleman-if-he-appeals-to-the-supreme-court

Cornyn: I’ll Support Norm Coleman if He Appeals to the Supreme Court
By David Weigel 6/23/09 2:12 PM


At a luncheon at the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s headquarters near Capitol Hill (organized by the Heritage Foundation), I asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) if there was a Republican game plan ready when the Minnesota Supreme Court makes its ruling in the contested 2008 Minnesota Senate race — if, as many expect, it decides that Al Franken (D) defeated former Sen. Norm Coleman (R). Although he cautioned that “most predictions about judicial outcomes are 50/50″ and that he didn’t rule out a Coleman win in the state Supreme Court, Cornyn said that Republicans were ready to back more lawsuits if Coleman lost.

“We’ll do everything we can to support Norm as long as he has appellate remedies to pursue,” Cornyn said. “I’m not suggesting Norm has this plan in mind, because frankly I think he’s hopeful it turns out well at the state Supreme Court. But as a former state Supreme Court judge and as a recovering lawyer for 30 years now, I would tell that if he were to lose, what happens is that the secretary of state and the governor are required to sign a certificate of election. Just as a procedural matter, if — and this is a big if — Norm were to decide to appeal this matter to the United States Supreme Court under the Bush v. Gore (2000) precedent, which says that under the Equal Protection Clause uniform counting standards are a Constitutional matter, that they could appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The justice that’s responsible for that area — I think it’s Justice Alito — could issue a stay in the issuance of the election certificate, and it could be referred to the entire court.”

Cornyn wasn’t sure that this would happen. “I say all this as ‘could,’” he said, “not as ‘will or should.’ It depends on what the Minnesota Supreme Court does. But at the oral arguments, Franken’s lawyers did argue about the applicability of the Bush v. Gore standard. It makes no sense, and it doesn’t meet the Supreme Court’s Constitutional precedent, to say that one local election official can decide by one standard which ballots should be counted and that some official somewhere else could decide by a different standard.”

Cornyn also argued that there was a larger issue at play than whether the Democrats got a 60th Senate seat. “I’m very proud of Norm Coleman for fighting the good fight to protect the right of Minnesota voters to make sure all legitimate votes are counted,” said Cornyn. “That is the real question here. I realize it’s manifested itself in terms of who actually wins this seat, but I think that should be the focus.”

[Warpy]

1. Cornyn, Inhofe and Bunning

are in a three way tie for Stupidest Member of Congress now that Ted Stevens is out.

It looks like the bastards are going for a record in stalling this thing.

It might be up to the Minnesota voters to launch a class action suit against Coleman and Pawlenty for depriving them of representation.

[pacalo]

2. The Bush v Gore decision was not to be used as a precedent, but as a one-time deal.

"...Just as a procedural matter, if — and this is a big if — Norm were to decide to appeal this matter to the United States Supreme Court under the Bush v. Gore (2000) precedent, which says that under the Equal Protection Clause uniform counting standards are a Constitutional matter, that they could appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The justice that’s responsible for that area — I think it’s Justice Alito — could issue a stay in the issuance of the election certificate, and it could be referred to the entire court.”

[snappyturtle]

5. I think that's the way most sane people look at it BUT the SCOTUS

opinion limiting the 'precedent' nature of their decision is questionable....and of course, Cornyn will take advantage of that.


Here is a quote from JC from an article that appeared in Politico on 3/17/2009 so he's been on this present kick for a while:


The Supreme Court in 2000 said in Bush v. Gore that there is an equal protection element of making sure there is a uniform standard by which votes are counted or not counted, and I think that’s a very serious concern in this instance,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “I’m not making any predictions, but I wouldn’t be surprised” if it ended up in federal court.

[pacalo]

9. Good point, snappy, but I could see where that "equal protection" element could apply to federal

laws, which uniformly apply to all 50 states. Using this standard when it comes to overriding one state's chosen election statutes doesn't seem appropriate.

[snappyturtle]

12. Oh I agree but that won't stop slimebags like Cornyn from pushing

the possibility and unfortunately, it probably sounds good to his un-enlightened base.

[Bandit]

6. He was wrong on two counts

The Scalia Extreme Court made it absolutely plain that the case would not establish precedent and according to the US constition the US Senate is the deciding body on who gets seated, not the Extreme court.

[pacalo]

10. That's a good point, too.

[hamsterjill]

3. Corny is such an embarrassment to Texas.

He's getting right up there with Bush.

I'm sorry, world. We raise some good people in Texas, but we also have our failures, as well, and Corny is one of them.

I suppose they think if they ride this thing out long enough, it will be time for Al Franken to run for re-election. It's ridiculous.

[DebbieCDC]

4. How can he use the Bush v. Gore "precedent" ?

SCOTUS specifically stated when giving chimp the presidency that B v. G could NOT be used as a precedent. Sounds like Cornyn isn't much of a lawyer, relying on a precedent that doesn't exist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Well, to be fair, the supreme court he's referencing isn't much of a court, either. nt

[AlinPA]

8. That sounds like they are going to the US SC. It will take a long time to file the appeal,

but either Pawlenty or Coleman will be in front of the US SC with this. 5-4 is a slam dunk for Coleman.

[Cha]

11. I'll just bet he will..that's right up his dark alley..

Obstructionism and Whinism.