I hope Franken is everything in the senate that he’s up until now shown himself to be. Loud mouthed, misogynistic, eager to cheat, manipulative, disloyal, etc. Should be an extremely easy target next election, (if Reid doesn’t find some way to boot him before then.)

Also, please stop saying that after the initial count, Coleman was ahead by 215. After the initial count, Coleman was ahead by 715. Then, after the DFL realized where they were, 500 votes magically appeared from trunks of cars, miss-reported votes, lock boxes under voting machines, etc. It’s clear that it’s over now, (ask Washington state,) but Coleman should have been crying, “foul!” more loudly then if he actually wanted to win this election. Once Mark Richie knew what had to be done, Coleman was done.

Because he chose not to fight when he had the advantage, he’s now in a position where he now has to fight with Franken having the upper hand. Typical Republican stupidity.

I’m so mad I can strangle someone.

Just looking at their track record on all cases over a period of years, you can tell just how conservative they are. Heck, just look at the idiotic judgement they gave in the absentee ballot case. That tells you what you need to know. Heck, look at the actions of the canvassing board, which was 2/5th composed of members of the Supreme Court.

………. cross-posted from Sub-Chat……

Re: Court ruled based on “Standing”…. Official Contest is written within the MN Law….
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 19:18:35 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 17:27:43 2009.

I believe you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion on how/why the decision was made…. It was a question of appropriate STANDING as I put forth and backed up by this quote ” the double-counting argument and the reconsideration of rejected absentee ballots — Coleman’s lawyers were told by the Canvassing Board or the Supremes that the appropriate place to have those issues considered was an election contest.” (from this MinnPost story: Senate recount: It’s unlikely Coleman will win in court). Despite the Headline interjecting the Papers Editors preconceived conclusion (their opinion, as we have and make our arguments) the stories early comment of “… in officially announcing that he would contest the election result, struck the right tone. Having a small mob of supporters cheering and chanting ….” (MOB? Mob implies a negative connotation and implication toward the Coleman campaign in this instance) makes me wonder how much of the Story is “reporting” and how much is the usual MSM attempting to INFLUENCE (Libs don’t confine Opinion to the Editorial pages) the story/outcomes (as put forth: here: RS: MSM Election Spin/Narrative, to influence Votes rather than just report on election and
here: RS: Vote Psychology (Bandwagon, Bradley, etc) effect) providing cover and setting up the reasons why MN Courts (depending on the specific jurisdiction, doesn’t mean a “Republican” staffed Judges court) could dismiss before holding actual Evidence hearing/presentation….

But AGAIN…. The suits were dismissed based on STANDING and procedure…. Now is AN OFFICIAL ELECTION CONTEST and the appropriate STANDING…. IMO, it will be suspect if it is all dismissed “out-of-hand” without arguments heard and an actual ruling being made – additional appeals will be a certainty!

If you have support for your arguments I’d appreciate the opportunity to review it. I do know, however, it is hard to find “TV reports” that have been made…. This MinnPost story was the absolute BEST full reporting of all the issues I’ve come across yet and it just came out Today!! It is tough, sometimes, to find the information we’ve based our opinions/arguments on – I know I don’t always have the info handy and/or links lying around.

Even in the SC decisions, Franken didn’t win them all – and the most notable iwn by Coleman was also the weakest of the reasonings (though it did have precedence, just bad precedence).

I think people are too quick to emotionally attach to fraud here that it might cause them to lose sight of the real events – this is nothing like Washington in 2004.

If these judges are moderate Republicans, they’re likely to be typical of the breed – spineless, principle-free and eager to please the people they consider their betters (Democrats) just to get invited to another cocktail party.

PS: Just looking at their rulings for Franken (read this or see below) is enough grounds for any reasonable person to doubt the integrity of everyone on that so-called “Bipartisan” canvassing board, Republican appointed or not.

… It is very difficult to determine how a voter meant to vote simply by looking at what might be stray marks on the ballot. And whatever rules are adopted must be consistently used in evaluating all ballots.

What to do when voters change their minds at the last moment or accidentally fill in the wrong oval? In such a case, the voters are supposed to ask for a new clean ballot. But the board presumes that some voters who change their minds simply put an “X” through the blacked-out oval. Even if the voter doesn’t blacken an oval for another candidate, an “X” through an oval is interpreted as the voter changing his mind. There is a claimed exception to this rule: if all the votes for each candidate that a voter supports are simultaneously marked by both filling in the oval and an “X,” voters are assumed to support those candidates.

The primary problem isn’t the rules. The real problem is the lack of consistency. Take some of the ballots that only marked the oval for Coleman, but where the oval is also marked through with an “X.” The Canvassing Board determined that those marks meant those voters intended to support “other/no one.” Here are a couple of examples, with more here.

Yet, there are a number of cases where the exact same markings for Franken were decided by the Canvassing Board to result in votes for Franken. More can be found here.

But to make the case even more strange, given this rule, what should the board decide when the oval is filled in for Coleman, but the Franken space is marked with an “X”? The board ruled that the vote is for Franken.

Nor can Coleman even win when there is an oval filled in for Coleman and the Constitution Party candidate receives an “X.” In that case, the board determined the support went to “other/no one.”

But if you have an oval filled in for Franken and the Independence Party candidate receives an oval with an “X,” the vote is given to Franken.

There are other cases where the ballots are clearly marked for Coleman, though the marks were relatively small, and the board awarded the votes to no one.

There are still other cases where it is hard to see how the board could legitimately declare certain votes for Franken. For example, a voter filled out neither the oval for Coleman nor for Franken, but colored in the area in between the two candidates. Part of the blob touches the edge of Coleman’s oval and one thin line goes slightly into Franken’s oval, and for 28 other races on the ballot the voter seems to have been able to fill out the required ovals – there is only one other case where he missed. Perhaps the board saw that the voter was voting for other Democrats and used that to help influence its decision, but there were a number of Democrats who voted for Obama and other Democrats, but not Franken.

Still the most obvious classification would have been not for Franken, but for “no one,” what most readers of the Minneapolis Star Tribune thought was the right answer.

Mistakes were also made against Franken, but they were much less common.

This reflexive bashing of judges is not a healthy reaction – and sounds way too much like Democrats who didn’t get their way.

Franken’s as every bit as bad as Dayton. The man has absolutely no qualifications to be elected to the Senate. I know that Reagan was just a B-list celeb, too. Thing is, Reagan was able to articulate a coherent vision of how he wanted to govern.

You’d think his time on Air America & with SNL would make Franken an effective communicator. Wrong. He’s a Terrible public speaker. And his only message was “Coleman’s a rubber stamp for Bush”. Not true, BTW. Which is why all of the major MN newspapers endorsed Coleman, even while they trashed Bush.

And unlike Dayton, Franken doesn’t even have roots in MN. Call Franken the Senator from DailyKos, because that’s his base of financial support. MN has some blue-staters. However, many are just cultural Democrats & are in for a rude awakening when they see what a terrible Senator Franken becomes. KosKids won’t care so long as he’s a reliable D vote.

Silver lining of a Franken win is that it’s now official: the Democrats are over-reaching. It was easy to convince the squishy moderates that Democrats were mainstream when the rising stars in the party were Senators Casey & Webb. But Franken is the left-wing ideological equivalent of Sean Hannity.

Even if Coleman miraculously pulls it out, it’s a shame that it was even this close.

Moe

PS: That wasn’t a suggestion, and I don’t care what your excuse is.

Look at the bright side; Franken’s almost guaranteed to be funnier on the floor of the senate than he ever was on SNL.

Are there any legal experts out there that think this has a good chance of being reversed, or is it a complete long shot?

Remember this one? ” The war is lost.” Or “Burris will not be seated”.