Bush V. Gore Redux: Republicans Urging Coleman To Go To Supreme Court

Politico:

A state court could rule any day now on Norm Coleman's challenge to Al Franken's 225-vote lead in Minnesota, but the race may be far from over no matter what the judges say.

Read the whole story: Politico

Comments

[Gatormouth]

Good call! The Court stopped the recount in Bush/Gore - lets stop the count on Coleman Franken and put this thing to rest.

[RRH]

PLEASE! We have seen the results of the Supremes getting involved with choosing our leaders. Coleman is a part of that era and he should take it like a man and put country before ego. The cost of trying to squeak out a couple of votes will not make him Senator. The seat rightfully belongs to Al Franken and the sooner he is sworn in, the better for America! I am sick of these sore losers who can't accept their results. You lost Norm, try again another time. We have enough republicans like you and one more we don't want or need!

[ManwithaParachute]

The GOP has no core values except that which it plucks out of it's chimp like bulbous anus and flings at the remaining society in America.

GOP: For Poo-flinging Simeons everywhere!!

[INSIPID]

Remember that their goal in Bush V. Gore was not to interpret the law but to instate their guy. They will not take this case because there's no way they can guarantee their guy gets in..

People forget that Bush V. Gore was based on not one but two bogus legal arguments.

1. An asinine interpretation of equal protection that states that it is better to throw out 10s of thousands of votes than to count votes differently from county to county. (Something which everyone remembers)

2. That it was more important to stick to a meaningless deadline than to find out who actually won the election. (Something which people seem to forget though this, moreso than the idiot equal protection argument was more damaging to Gore).

It was absolutely essential that they use both scams in order to perpetrate this fraud. Without the meaningless deadline, elevated to an absolute necessity (helped in large measure by the endless blather from talking heads about the supposed "constitutional crises") they could of simply recounted the votes using one uniform counting method.

Using these two scams in conjunction they were able to deprive the American People of a great man and a would be great President and put in this horrid cabal running our government the past few years. However the equal protection argument wouldn't of worked without the stupid deadline argument because the obvious answer is: "Ok, we'll recount using the same standards."

[bannorhill]

Meaningless deadline. It was set by the Constitution. So does that mean the Constitution is meaningless?

[INSIPID]

It was not set by the constitution. It was set by Florida law. And yes, it is meaningless for 3 reasons:

1.It was a full 2 months before the new President had to take office. There was no reason whatsoever why a count couldn't be done.

2. Courts move deadlines ALL the time. Even for reasons far less compelling then determining who the rightful President of the United States should be.

3. When the courts have 2 competing laws that seemingly contradict each other it is up to the courts to determine which of the statutes is more important and to decide what to do accordingly. The two competing statutes in this case was one Florida law that called for the counting of votes and another florida law that calls for a deadline. By what possible rationale can you state that it's more important to adhere to a deadline then it is to determine who actually received the most votes? Keep in mind that it has, in the past taken FAR longer to determine who won certain states then it did in Florida. Kennedy wasn't determined the winner of Hawaii until Late January, i believe. There's no reason the recount couldn't of been done. We would still have a president, the constitution wasn't going to collapse and we'd of been spared the horror of these last 8 miserable years.

[NuAgeDok]

Every CEO and bailout thug Repug from San Diego to Staten Island is donating money to Coleman so he will have no choice but to go to the Supreme Court.

What I don't understand is why give money to someone who will probably be indicted anyway?

[Whinger]

Losers always grasp at straws, what else have the got to lose except self respect.

[jazzman]

The fact that we are all here debating about whether the Supreme Court would hear this case and whether a Republican could use legal tricks to overturn the results of an election is a testament to how deeply the Supreme Court undermined our trust and respect for the law back in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore. The Supremes back then just wanted to coronate President Bush and then say that their ruling wasn't a precedent and hope it would all go away. It hasn't . People are looking over thier shoulders with deep mistrust of our political and judicial system. On top of that, the Supreme Court's choice in 2000 gave us arguably one of the worst Presidents in our nation's history. So the Supreme Court's judgment and wisdom is suspect. The 2000 decision was a mess and it has been messing with all of our heads ever since. So now, what should be a slam dunk judicial ruling in Franken's favor has Democrats nervous and the opposition hopeful.

[Linda Jordan]

So righ!

[IowaKid]

OMG this is getting to be MORE than ridiculous anymore. Why are republicans such BAD LOSERS??? Seat Al so Minnesota has a voice geez stop the melodrama.

[jazzman]

Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution might have a little to say about this. Whereas Bush vs. Gore was a national election this is a State election and the Constitution puts the decision making regarding State elections in the hands of the Congress. I would guess that the determined outcome of State elections determines who sits in the Chamber and the Congress is not going to change those established rules. Once the State of MN SC orders the issuance of a certificate the issue should be over. Either that or the SCOTUS is about to politicize and overstep its Constitutional authority in the most dramatic way possible. Would they do this for a loser like Coleman who might be indicted by a grand jury and be forced from the Senate anyway? I wouldn't bet on it.

[BarackstarObama]

They are the Grand Obstructionist Party, what else would they say?

[MThomasNC]

This is it, folks. For over 40 years the conservative movement have systematically built a communicat­ions/messa­ge network to win control over our well being and keep the country in a 1950s mindset. They finally got their prize in 2001 w controlling the three branches of government.
Today they no longer formally control government, but they control the message and that's most important. Everything we hear and see on tv and/or radio, and many newspapers­/magazines is presented from the conservative point of view.
Coleman's actions are nonsense but no one in the MSM would dare report this for it's not the conservative point of view. The Politico's article have comments from 7 to 8 repub senators and one comment from a dem. No where in the reporting are comments from legal scholars, nor any comments about the B v G case not setting precedent as stated by the supremes in 2000.

[JinMN]

Coleman give it up-we want another senator to represent our state already! Enough is enough!

[jinxed]

When Norm's options are finally exhausted Norm has ethics violations to address. Maybe he's doing this just to put that off considering it will not be pretty. Do you think the Rs still have enough suck in the SCOTUS to get them to stick their nose where it doesn't belong again?

[tomasedison]

NORM is shopping around for an activist judge like Bush found in 2000

[JinMN]

Ha ha probably!

[greatlardini]

I think NORRRMMM just doesn't want to face the fact that he's lost elections to a rassler and a comedian. Life's a bee-otch, ain't it NORRRMMM.