What's new

MN Senate Ruling Deals Coleman Setback

FA Mikey

Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
4,421
Reaction score
301
Location
miami
Election Contest Ruling Deals Coleman Setback, Appeal Certain

How long will Coleman and the GOP drag this out?

A three-judge state panel convened to review an election contest brought by former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman ® in his race against entertainer Al Franken (D) has dealt the Republican a serious setback in its ruling this afternoon.

The panel will allow the consideration of only 400 wrongly rejected absentee ballots to be reviewed and possibly counted -- making it very difficult for Coleman to make up the 225-vote deficit he currently carries.

"We feel pretty good about where we stand," said Marc Elias, a lawyer for Franken's campaign, on a conference call conducted moments ago. "This court has spoken clearly about the legal standards are" for the inclusion of ballots.


Full story here
 
If the tables were turned and it were Coleman who were ahead, would you be quite so quick to want to rush justice thru?

Between the 2000 presidential and this case, there's a lot of good case law being developed. There are holes in the system. If you don't let the process go on, it will just be deferred to the next close race.
 
Rush to judgment? The election was back in November. We are heading in to April and with the GOP, with no end in sight continues to drag this on.

Would it be different if it were the other way? Yea it was, in Bush V Gore.
 
Rush to judgment? The election was back in November. We are heading in to April and with the GOP, with no end in sight continues to drag this on.

Would it be different if it were the other way? Yea it was, in Bush V Gore.

So just screw it and let the Comic get seated??

That's whats wrong with you liberal wonks.....we have a legal system that works.

Just like the Chris Dodd denial you posted....... :lol:
 
That's whats wrong with you liberal wonks.....we have a legal system that works.
yeah, until the courts hand down a ruling that conservatives disagree with ..then they are "activist judges".
 
It will END, when the HERITAGE FOUNDATION, the RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, and Richard Mellon Scaife,..............FINALLY realize that they're WASTING money on an LOSER !!!

BUT, in the meantime, let them SPEND and WASTE....SPEND and WASTE, and SPEND and WASTE.

Nothing HURTS a neocon more, than to SPEND MONEY,.............ESPECIALLY when their "ROI" is ZERO !

SUCKERS !!!!
 
It will END, when the HERITAGE FOUNDATION, the RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, and Richard Mellon Scaife,..............FINALLY realize that they're WASTING money on an LOSER !!!

BUT, in the meantime, let them SPEND and WASTE....SPEND and WASTE, and SPEND and WASTE.

Nothing HURTS a neocon more, than to SPEND MONEY,.............ESPECIALLY when their "ROI" is ZERO !

SUCKERS !!!!

Win or lose ,Pal...due process reigns supreme.
 
yeah, until the courts hand down a ruling that conservatives disagree with ..then they are "activist judges".

I think you got it wrong ,Pal.

When liberals don't get their way in our Democracy and process THEY are the ones who run to the courts for an end around on the Constitution and the Democratic process.
Hence the term 'Activist Judge'...ie....one who legislates from the bench.

Case in point.........the gay thing out in Arnoldland put to a Demoratic vote by THEM and THEY lost Democratically now THEY are seeking help from Mommy because THEIR little gig didn't go the way THEY thought it would.
 
Although best left for another thread.

Do you mean that silly case where the state Supreme Courts handed down a ruling of equal protection under the law and the religious zealots unable to live with a minority group having a equal standing, created a referendum to take away a fundamental right the supreme court had affirmed they were entitled too?
 
Its called case law. Nothing is black and white, and circumstances, situations and arguments dictate variations on what one party or the other perceives as an absolute.
 
Although best left for another thread.

Do you mean that silly case where the state Supreme Courts handed down a ruling of equal protection under the law and the religious zealots unable to live with a minority group having a equal standing, created a referendum to take away a fundamental right the supreme court had affirmed they were entitled too?


Yep, that's the one.
 
I think you got it wrong ,Pal.

When liberals don't get their way in our Democracy and process THEY are the ones who run to the courts for an end around on the Constitution and the Democratic process.
Hence the term 'Activist Judge'...ie....one who legislates from the bench.

Case in point.........the gay thing out in Arnoldland put to a Demoratic vote by THEM and THEY lost Democratically now THEY are seeking help from Mommy because THEIR little gig didn't go the way THEY thought it would.



dell,...YOUR ANGER..."PAL"...is showing.................KNOCK IT OFF !!!!!!!!!!!!

I for one(BELIEVE IT OR NOT)....AGREE with you on the prop 8 thing.
They went to the SYSTEM, and LOST......(thanx in LARGE part to DEMOCRATIC Cal. African Americans !!!!!!!!!!!!!), ....so THATS IT !!.......................TRY again when it's the appropriate time..VIA the SYSTEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Bears, they meaning the gays had the right to marry based on a supreme court decision. The prop 8 was to take away the rights they had under the California constitution. They didnt go out and try through a ballot measure to get this right, it was another group that fought to take it away.
 
Judges job is to interpret the law.

NOT write law.

Case law (also known as decisional law or judicial precedent) is the general term for the principles and rules of law set forth in judicial opinions from courts of law.[1] Case law incorporates courts' decisions from individual cases and encompasses courts' interpretations of statutes, constitutional provisions, administrative regulations and, in some cases, law originating solely from the courts. Case law is often published in print law reports or reporters (and increasingly on court websites) to establish precedent - rules to apply in future court decisions dealing with similar situations.

For countries with a common law legal system, such as in the United Kingdom, United States, and most of the Commonwealth of Nations, case law is a major source of law. In general, courts in common law countries treat the decisions of higher appellate courts as normative - laying down rules that should, or in some cases must, be used to decide similar legal disputes (called "binding precedent").[1] In countries with legal systems that follow the civil law tradition derived from Roman law, however, the courts are not strictly bound by rules and principles from case law.



A Question for you FA Mikey if I may. Why do you seem to feel so threatened by the concept that the rights of the individual supersede the rights of government?
With all do respect I do not understand what you mean by the question.
 
Back
Top