Minnesota Judges Grill Coleman Lawyer On Lack Of Evidence

Talking Points Memo:

The oral arguments just finished at the Minnesota Supreme Court, in Norm Coleman's appeal of his defeat at the election trial, with Coleman's lead attorney Joe Friedberg arguing that serious constitutional issues mean the trial court's legal conclusions should be overturned and more previously-rejected absentee ballots from Coleman's selected list put into the count. Franken's side obviously argued differently. For this post, let's focus on the Coleman side.

Read the whole story: Talking Points Memo

Comments

[mredder4]

I'm strongly suspicious that Coleman's next tactic is incompetent legal counsel. Considering how hard the MN Supreme Court grilled Coleman's team about the quality of his evidence, what's not to say that if he loses the whole shibang that he doesn't appeal it all on the grounds that his lawyers were terrible?

(I guess I only think this because Coleman's lawyers seem suspiciously incompeten­t.)

[djgonebad]

Pawlenty withdrew his name from consideration, yesterday, for the next, Minnesota Governors election.

Is he opening the door for a national campaign? Or is he going into the "private" sector?

All I can conclude is he's smarter than the average Repug; but, just as "gutless" as the whole bunch.

[weatherwaxx]

Look at the bright side... people are donating $ for every day Coleman stalls. He's already raised $100K for Democratic campaigning. Thanks, Normie.

[roger37]

Note that the Coleman attorneys are using Bush v. Gore as precedent for most of their arguments, even though the SCOTUS specifically said that Bush v Gore was NOT be used as precedent.

The Minn. Supremes should dismiss this case as not being sufficiently made, and direct Pawlenty to order Franken's seating. Just in time to kill the filibuster on Sotomayor.

[jjgg5]

Norm ("Choppers") Coleman is tenacious but completely misguided. Obviously, he does not believe in the American, democratic electoral process. He is a most disloyal citizen. And, that's saying a great deal for a Republican.

[danonchalant1]

I disagree. For a Republican, it is par for the course.

[GeoLee]

I would like to think that all these republican appointed justices are not just acting today and then rule for him tomorrow. Can the republicans left in the party really be trusted to be non partisan? Seems to me those that could re registered as Independents after 2004.

[somsoc]

Coleman's legal team is about as pathetic as he is, the following exchange with the Minn. SC. is a prime example:

"...Friedb­erg said they've gathered plenty of evidence from the two-dozen counties they did call -- that counties used a varying standard, and that substantial compliance should be enough to let these ballots in, as opposed to a strict compliance standard used by the trial court. "We've made our case," he said forcefully. "You can't make it any better than that! .."

Justice Anderson shot back. "I still have problems with your saying we're a substantial compliance state," Anderson said. "And as loud as you speak on this issue there's language I don't think you can overcome."

If I had received such remarks from an appellate level bench I would have left with my head hung low and my spirits dashed. Friedberg just got told he had no case that he had failed to meet even the minimal standards of proof, what a shot. We'll see if the final out come follows this in Court series of remarks, but this was true hard ball. Well deserved, but hard.

[RickCoMatic]

The fact is, Coleman had no business taking such a weak case up for appeal to a Supreme Court.
I'm sure that the Justice's were restraining themselves from their want to give Coleman's lead lawyer, Joe Friedberg, a reading of the Minnesota version of the Riot Act. I sure it was uncomfortable to appear before the Supreme Court Justice's and hear them make statements concerning your case that were carefully phrased to avoid becoming pure ridicule of the Coleman appeal. But, the Justice's did let Friedberg know that they were perturbed to have to deal with such a weak and ill-prepared case to ever be brought before them. To have one Justice remark, "You have NO evidence!" And another complain that, "He'd never before seen such a presentation of case's offer of proof" is absolutely the worst case scenario. I'm sure that Friedberg knew the criticism was forthcoming. I think he was prepared to read about it when the Court rendered the decision. I don't think he expected to hear it coming from the Bench during his Oral Argument, but it's about time that we did hear an honest appraisal of the Coleman Suit. I'm glad the Court sees it for what it is.

[politicaljunkie41910]

Evidence!! We don't need no stinking evidence. We're republicans.

My guess is that the Minnesota Supreme Court (choosing to follow the law and not make law) will find in favor of Franken based on the failure of Coleman's attorney's to make a case for overturning the lower courts decision.

Coleman will then take his case to SCOTUS, who will overturn the Minnesota Supreme Courts' decision and chastise the MSC for not addressing the fundamenta arguments Coleman's attorney raised about the equal protection clause. After all what about those poor Minnesota voters who went to bed Nov 4 believing in their hearts that Coleman had won. Shouldn't the lower court have considered those Coleman voters' feelings before brushing aside their case simply because they Coleman's attorney failed to provide any evidence. :-)

Those activist justices on the SCOTUS will then overturn the lower courts decision and send the case back to the lower courts, thereby ensuring that Minnesota never gets a second sitting Senator in this congressional session. (and before anyone who doesn't get what I'm doing here, this it is a spoof on the arguments currently being made by the Right against Supreme Court nominee Sonja Sotomayer in the Ricci case now under review by the SCOTUS)

[Phalanxman]

"Evidence!! We don't need no stinking evidence. We're republican­s."

You took the words right off of my keyboard.

[SoCalNick]

You both took them right off my post from this morning LOL

[stylenease]

Coleman is such a pansy. He is a coward for using the legal system to resolve his gripe. He should have just challenged FRanken to a Hot Dog eating contest.

Winner take all!

[somsoc]

Wiener take all!

[Phxflyer]

Seat Sen. Al Franken NOW!

[larmarch5]

Hopefully the Gopers won't have enough money to fight Franken's election AND Sotomayor's confirmation. I wonder how much they've poured down that rathole. And how much did it cost them to do the Palosi Galore fiasco that they had to, dare I say it, abort?

[djgonebad]

Pawlenty is in for a decision that could cost him his political future; stay on Colmen's side and ride that dead horse, in order to satisfy the "rabid right".

Or, side with the courts inevitable decision (for Franken) and alienate the crazies in his party; thus killing his national asperations.

Or, just be a good govener for his state's citizens, like a morally balance politician would do.

But, then again, Republicans seem to have abandoned logic, so anything is possible in this case.

[Opygollopy]

Republicans also have no morals, but they have guns and cynical prayer.

[Vere15]

Actually they have guns since they dont believe really really in prayer

[regellner]

If the MN Supreme Court decides in favor of Franken, Pawlenty would be wise to seat him unless he wishes create an issue for his political future.

http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m5d20-As-Franken-builds-his-senatorial-office-Coleman-continues-fight


Raymond Gellner – Charlotte Liberal Examiner at Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner

[imsosure]

Coleman must go, he needs to find his first ever job outside of the government. Gotta go Coleman, try flipping burgers or teaching first graders, something you would do with people involving you actually doing something. Bye Coleman you lost, you lost, go away you loser.

[jweider]

It's nice to see that the Judges grilled Coleman's lawyer. Personally, I prefer lawyers barbecued but grilled lawyer is good too as long as they served well done..

[dwillisno1]

I prefer honest lawyer, in grilling terms, that means "rare"