Will Franken be seated before the one year anniversary of the election? Don't bet on it.

[cali]

Oral arguments in front of the MN SC won't even begin until June.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/21/national/a093524D21.DTL

[tridim]

1. Why can't oral arguments begin today?

Is the MN SC corrupt?

[MineralMan]

2. Nope. Not corrupt. Slow, but all SCs are slow.

[cali]

3. no they aren't. they can expedite anything they want to

remember bush v gore?

[zipplewrath]

5. Yes

Do you really want this handled like that?

[cali]

7. yes, I want if fast tracked

we're not discussing outcome, but expediting.

[MineralMan]

9. That's not going to happen.

What is forgotten is how close this election truly was. The challenge was automatic, and the SCOMN case was absolutely expected. It's all going according to Minnesota law. If that is bypassed somehow, or if the SCOMN rushes to judgment without following normal process, the arguments will go on for years, and the case will end up in the SCOTUS.

Patience. It's hard, I know, but that's what it's going to take.

[tridim]

8. I do, Franken won the election

And therefore he should be seated as quickly as possible.

[MineralMan]

10. Are you a Minnesota voter?

If not, then you're not understanding election law in this state. That is what is being followed. If you are, then you should probably understand that the law must be followed.

[tridim]

12. Franken won the election.

No I'm not in MN, but I believe something bigger is at stake here. Coleman is setting a precident for all future elections. Apparenly you can use the courts to delay the Democratic process indefinitely.

[MineralMan]

14. You're missing a serious point here.

On the initial vote count, Coleman had more votes than Franken. It was so close that it triggered an automatic recount under Minnesota law. At the end fo that count, Franken had a slim lead. Minnesota law allows candidates to challenge election results in those cases. Coleman challenged. I would have expected Franken to do the same. The initial three-judge panel found that Franken had won the election. A further challenge to the Supreme Court is also allowed under Minnesota law. That challenge has been made.

Until the Supreme court rules, there is no official winner in this election, again under Minnesota law.

It's not all that difficult to understand. Were it not for Minnesota election laws, Coleman would have been certified as the winner after the initial vote count. Would that make you happy?

There is no alternative. The process must be finished. At this time, under Minnesota law, the winner of the election has not been determined yet.

Do I like the slowness? Absolutely not. Am I resigned to it. Yes. I can't see any alternative to having a legally-elected Senator...under Minnesota law.

[Land Shark]

16. And these general facts are the core area of Bush v. Gore equal protection challenge. nt

[Marr]

18. Law hasn't mandated the situation be dragged out so long.

That's the doing of Coleman (and his financial backers). If the parties were reversed, I expect Franken would've conceded by now.

So while this may be the legal process for handling the dispute, the dispute itself should have been dropped long ago.

[MineralMan]

19. I doubt that Franken would have conceded, and if he had,

we'd all be screaming that he shouldn't have done so. In an election this close, a candidate would be a fool to concede until all avenues had been explored. 312 votes out of several million is nothing.

Franken will be seated. We have a majority in the Senate already. His will be just one more vote, and will still not bring the Dem number up to 60.

[Land Shark]

15. See #13: The more one knew about election law in 2000 the LESS likely they'd predict Bush v Gore

That being said, Mineral Man's respect for MN election law is not off base. It's just that even Republican election law scholars that thought Bush should win in 2000 thought the Bush v. gore opinion was an abomination of election law/equal protection law.

[tridim]

4. But is this not a special circumstance?

A circumstance that is threatening Democracy?

Bush v Gore was fast-tracked.

[MineralMan]

6. Here's the deal. If justice is not seen to have been done

in Minnesota, it will go to the SCOTUS. If the MN Supreme Court doesn't rush the case and allows both sides plenty of time to present briefs, there will be little reason for the SCOTUS to take the case.

Yes the 2000 election should be our guide. That should not be allowed to happen again. A month, more or less, is not that much in a super-close, disputed election of a US Senator.

In the end Al Franken will be seated.

[tridim]

11. IMO it doesn't matter that it was close, Franken won the election.

He should be seated as quickly as possible. I don't want to hear about crap that's two months down the road.

Franken won, honor Democracy and seat him NOW. Then Norm and the SC can take all the time they want to present their bullshit briefs.

I guess you can tell I'm a bit upset about all this.

[MineralMan]

17. He will be seated when there is an official, legal winner

of the election. That will not be the case until the Supreme Court of Minnesota renders its decision.

You're impatient. That's natural. Legally, though, there is no winner yet in this election, and there will not be until the election process is finished.

Sadly, we didn't have a decisive outcome here in this race. I blame Franken for that, since he did not make the necessary effort to ensure that everyone who voted for President Obama also voted for him. There was a third-party candidate and that's where the problem lies. Had everyone who voted for Obama voted for Franken, this would have been over in November.

I spoke to Al Franken about that possibility during the campaign and he shrugged it off. I spoke to others about it, too. They blew it, by not going after the first-time voters who voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I saw it happen in my Saint Paul precinct. New voters, registering at the polling place, took their ballots and marked them only for Obama and did not vote in any other race. Franken did not work with the Obama campaign to make sure those voters knew they needed to vote for both races.

There it is.

Franken will be seated.

[Land Shark]

13. More details, and briefing schedules, at this link to MN media

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/43620032.html?elr=KArksUUUU

Quote from the Star Tribune:

Coleman’s Republican allies in Congress have urged him to take his fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He hasn’t ruled out that option.

Those who welcome Scalia & Co's interference and believe they would not or could not do it again, as in Bush v. Gore, are misguided. What price, after all, did the court really pay for deciding the 2000 election? They went on to make all kinds of controversial decisions with their "political capital" apparently un-impaired.

I don't believe SCOTUS is, or will be, deterred, unless some deterrent of some sort is brought to the fore. (?) The fact that the legal merits are weak to non-existent did not matter at all in Florida 2000, in fact the more one knew about election law in 2000 the less likely they would be to predict the ACTUAL OUTCOME. (I'm a published author on the case of Bush v. Gore, and former election law lawyer.)

The schedule, set by the five justices (minus the two who served on the Canvassing Board) who will hear Coleman’s appeal:

Coleman must file his opening brief on the merits no later than next Thursday;

Franken has until May 11 to respond.

Coleman then has until May 15 to file his reply brief.

The justices will hear oral argument on the appeal on June 1, at 9 a.m.