|
Post by Chicawolverina on Feb 12, 2009 0:29:00 GMT -5
Say Rico, how'bout a new news update on Al Franken's progress toward the US Senate? ><Tomasina Chicawolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Feb 12, 2009 13:45:00 GMT -5
Remember you can always get daily updates from the Minneapolis Star Tribune at www.startribune.com . Coleman tried to keep any of the rejected absentee ballots counted, but now that some were counted putting Franken ahead by 225 votes...I think it's now 248, he wants thousands more counted. So the court's going to rule on about 4500 more soon. But, he's threating to tie this thing up with appeals for so long that a winner may not be known for months, or up to 2 years. Here's the latest: _________________________________ Judges will hear which absentee ballots should count today In a reverse from the recount, DFLer Al Franken wants to restrict the number, while Republican Norm Coleman wants more counted. By KEVIN DUCHSCHERE and PAT DOYLE, Star Tribune staff writers Last update: February 12, 2009 - 5:17 AM Featured comment In what could prove to be the most important day of the U.S. Senate election trial so far, lawyers for Al Franken and Norm Coleman will trade arguments today on whether several types of rejected absentee ballots should be reconsidered or rejected once and for all. "You will hear a lot of issues discussed in a very short amount of time," said Coleman spokesman Ben Ginsberg. The categories that the presiding three judges agree to reconsider will become central to the trial, in which Republican Coleman is seeking to overturn DFLer Franken's 225-vote lead. The ruling could both expand the number of rejected absentee ballots to be counted, and shrink the amount of time necessary to run through them in court. Last week, the judges ruled that 4,800 voters, whose absentee ballots may have been rejected because of election officials' errors, might have their votes counted after all. Coleman claims that such errors happened repeatedly. Franken -- who has taken a relatively restrictive view of possible ballots since he took the lead over Coleman in recount results certified last month -- believes that absentee ballots should not be counted in 17 of 19 major categories of rejected ballots identified by the judges. About the only disputed absentee ballots that Franken says should be allowed are those where a local election official messed up a new voter's registration, or where the voter and his witness didn't write down the same dates. Coleman, on the other hand, wants to reconsider ballots from 16 of the 19 categories. The approaches are almost opposite the strategies followed by the campaigns during the recount, when Coleman sought to limit the field of ballots to be considered and Franken sought to expand it.
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Mar 13, 2009 11:49:25 GMT -5
It's wrapping up now, and it's looking very good for Al. But Coleman will probably appeal at least to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
In the meantime, have any of you heard the discussions about Cheney having run hit squads out of his office? It's starting to get mainstream coverage, and what's also starting to get coverage is that Cheney may have been behind the 2002 death of Senator Paul Wellstone that resulted in Coleman's election at that time. Do a google search on "Cheney Hit Squad" and see what you come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Chicawolverina on Mar 13, 2009 17:33:28 GMT -5
Holycow! I bet there's a lot of horrible stuff that isn't out yet that we're just going to be overwhelmed by. I'm sure Al's got it though, hope anyway. Seat him, and stay out of little planes. ><Tomasina Chicawolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Mar 13, 2009 18:23:37 GMT -5
Wellstone's plane was probably sabotaged.
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Mar 31, 2009 17:07:46 GMT -5
OK...it may be getting near the end. This is going to boost Al's numbers. Coleman may appeal to the Minnesota State Supreme Court, but no one's going to tolerate him taking it to the Federal Level: _____________________ Court to count up to 400 ballots in Senate recount trial The absentee ballots are far fewer than Norm Coleman sought and appear to include many that Al Franken had identified as wrongly rejected.
By PAT DOYLE , Star Tribune
Last update: March 31, 2009 - 4:42 PM Featured comment
In a potentially decisive ruling, a panel of three judges today ordered up to 400 new absentee ballots opened and counted, far fewer than Republican Norm Coleman had sought in his effort to overcome a lead held by DFLer Al Franken. The ballots appear to include many that Franken had identified as wrongly rejected as well as ballots that Coleman wanted opened. About half come from Hennepin, Ramsey and St. Louis counties, places Franken won by significant margins.
Spokespersons for Coleman and Franken were not immediately available for comment.
The panel emphasized that some of the nearly 400 ballots might not be counted, but were included in the order because their eligibilty was unclear.
But absentee ballots rejected during and after the November election became the centerpiece of Coleman's court challenge of the 225-vote lead that Franken obtained after a recount.
The three-judge panel ordered the ballots delivered to the Secretary of State's Office by April 6 and those deemed legal to be opened and counted April 7 in the Supreme Court room at the Minnesota Judicial Center.
In rejecting most of the ballots Coleman had sought to open, the panel dismissed his lawyers' arguments that it apply a more lenient standard in deciding which ballots should be counted.
While Coleman's lawyer Joe Friedberg argued that people using registered voting documents should be presumed registered voters, the panel repeatedly wrote that it was unwilling to make presumptions when it came to voter registration.
The judges said voters needed to sign absentee ballot applications as well as the return evelopes that contain the ballots.
Coleman's lawyers "argued that a voter could not obtain an absentee ballot without first completing an absentee ballot application and that the court could presume the existence of the application," the panel wrote.
"The court was unwilling to make this presumption," the panel said.
Of the ballots approved for opening, 119 come from Hennepin, 43 from Ramsey and 40 from St. Louis counties.
Coleman had asked the panel early in the trial to consider counting 4,800 rejected absentee ballots. But rulings by the judges effectively narrowed the field to less than 3,000, and Coleman ended up asking the panel to count 1,369 and consider roughly another 400 rejected by him and Franken during the recount.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a developing story. Franken’s campaign scheduled a 4:30 p.m. conference call with reporters. Check back for continued updates.
|
|
|
Post by Chicawolverina on Mar 31, 2009 19:15:51 GMT -5
Well... I guess it's looking better, let's hope it soooooon though! ><Tomasina Chicawolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Apr 14, 2009 16:48:53 GMT -5
Well, you know he's officially declared the winner yesterday by the appellate court. But it looks like Norm will appeal to the Minnesota State Supreme Court and tie it up another couple of months. Seems a waste of time, since two Minnesota Surpemes were on the panel that already ruled Al to be the winner.
After that, will he take it Federal? And will my Senator, Harry Reid, seat Al in the interim if it happens?
|
|
|
Post by Chicawolverina on Apr 17, 2009 0:56:21 GMT -5
Looks good, I see he's getting so much support, not to mention I don't think I can believe Colman has much traction left with the judges even with as much cheek he's shown up to this point. Colman, put a pistol in your mouth, or shut the hell up! ><Tomasina Chicawolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Jun 1, 2009 17:51:09 GMT -5
Here's the latest on today's hearing. What's interesting is that the article seems to concede Franken will win, even though it's from the right-wing rag, Newsmax:
____________________ Coleman’s Senate Hopes Dim In Tough Questioning by Minnesota Supreme Court
Monday, June 1, 2009 1:30 PM
By: David A. Patten Article Font Size
Minnesota Supreme Court justices battered Sen. Norm Coleman's lead attorney with tough questions Monday, voicing outright skepticism that Coleman has produced enough evidence to overturn a lower court's ruling that Democrat Al Franken won the U.S. Senate seat by 312 votes.
"I know you're a trial lawyer, and in my trial experience, I've never seen an offer of proof like this," Justice Paul Anderson told Coleman lead attorney Joe Friedberg. "It doesn't identify witnesses. It doesn't identify what they're going to say in terms of what exhibit that they're challenging. … Why is this offer of proof not inadequate, in that we don't have admissible evidence that can be considered by this court in determining whether you've met your burden [of proof]?"
Another justice, Christopher Dietzen, told Friedberg: "It seems like you're offering little more than an opening statement of, in this case, Coleman's theory of the case, but no concrete evidence to back it up."
Later Dietzen told Friedberg frankly, "I'm very bothered by your [lack of] proof."
During Monday's oral arguments, both sides had 25 minutes to present their case and answer justices' questions. Coleman's side was then given an additional 10 minutes to rebut Franken's case.
Coleman's lawyers told the justices that different counties used different standards to decide which ballots to count. Moreover, they said the three-judge election panel imposed a tougher standard for which ballots to count, effectively changing the rules of the election in the middle of the game.
Friedberg asked justices to "extrapolate" that more ballots would have been included, had the counties all applied the same standard. Coleman wants several thousand more ballots tallied.
Franken's lead attorney, Marc Elias, also faced close scrutiny, but did not appear to be on the hot seat the way Friedberg clearly was.
Elias conceded that no election is perfect, but said Coleman's team had fallen short of proving that voters' rights of due process and equal protection under the law had been violated – the grounds upon which the Coleman case rests.
Elias told justices that "every ballot has a story," meaning that local and state election officials knew the circumstances of the ballots when they decided whether to count them. Ballots that appeared invalid based on state law – absentee ballots without the required signature, for example, or where the voter's registration status could not be verified – could simply be common sense exceptions, Elias suggested.
One of the key questions for justices is whether state officials and judges applied a "strict compliance" standard, or a "substantial compliance" standard, in determining which ballots to count.
Strict compliance means a ballot is invalidated whenever it fails to meet the stipulated requirements of the law. Substantial compliance means that if a voter's intent is clear, the vote can be counted even when it could perhaps be disqualified on technical grounds.
Coleman's legal team is arguing that different standards were applied at different times and places, thereby violating the constitutional rights of voters whose ballots were not tabulated.
Legal scholars caution that tough questions don't always indicate which way the justices may be leaning. Some judges, they say, direct tougher questions to the side whose arguments they find more convincing, in order to test the soundness of those points, and to avoid any appearance of favoritism.
After the oral arguments were presented, Coleman, who attended the oral arguments, told the media: "I don't know what's in those [uncounted] ballots. But every one of those ballots would have been counted if they lived in a different area. And whether your vote counts or not shouldn't depend on where you live."
Friedberg emphasized that Coleman merely seeks to ensure that every valid vote is counted.
"It's really strange that the counties with the resources, like Minneapolis' Ramsey County and St. Louis County -- the Democratic strongholds -- are the ones that relaxed the standards and let the higher percentage of ballots in," Friedberg said. "While the good old Republican counties followed the rules. We pay for that now."
Friedberg did not appear shaken or concerned by the justices' questions.
"Those questions were right on. There wasn't a single unfair question to either side," Friedberg said.
Coleman's attorneys are asking the state's highest court to send the case back to the three-judge panel that heard the election contest originally, ordering them to count absentee ballots that court had refused to consider.
The race has drawn national attention because a Franken win would give Democrats their 60th vote for in the Senate, theoretically giving them a veto-proof majority.
There has been speculation that Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty would come under very strong political pressure – and possibly legal pressure as well -- to sign a certificate of election, even if Coleman declares his intention to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling. Pawlenty has stated that he will sign the certificate for whoever emerges the winner, when he is directed to do so by law.
Three of the five justices hearing the appeal were appointed by Republicans, and a fourth was appointed by former Gov. Jesse Ventura, an independent. A spokesman for Minnesota Republican party has told Newsmax that state's GOP leaders have generally confidence that the justices will give Coleman a fair hearing.
It could be days or weeks before the Minnesota Supreme Court rules on the appeal. Coleman and his attorneys declined to state Monday whether they would file a federal appeal, perhaps including one with the U.S. Supreme Court, appeal if Minnesota's highest court rules in Franken's favor.
|
|
|
Post by Chicawolverina on Jun 1, 2009 20:49:24 GMT -5
If Coleman was a Democrat we know he wouldn't have even gotten that far with this, even if he was George Soros wealthy. I really think it's time someone tell the guy, ok look it's close, but it's Al. ><Tomasina Chicawolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Jun 5, 2009 3:24:34 GMT -5
According to Ed Schultz, Coleman has indicated in blogs he'll drop out and won't go Federal if the Minnesota Supremes rule against him.
|
|
|
Post by Chicawolverina on Jun 5, 2009 21:55:56 GMT -5
God Ricko, I can see some powerful statesmen like character Christopher Plummer type "talk to" Coleman or something, but that should have happened by now. Al's been not very loud about anything much lately that I can see. ><Tomasina Chicawolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Jun 8, 2009 12:25:46 GMT -5
Al is working behind the scenes with the Senate. It's not in his interest to speak up too much in public, but what I think he's working on is getting the Senate to seat him, whether or not Coleman appeals to the Federal Courts and whether or not Pawlenty signs an election certificate.
|
|
|
Post by Chicawolverina on Jun 8, 2009 22:46:07 GMT -5
God, and this is eight months old now already! After Franken is "seated" I hope he goes on to the presidency... or something someday! Franken an attorney too? ><Tomasina Chicawolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Jun 30, 2009 13:26:36 GMT -5
Here it is: The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled Al Franken the winner and it's a unanimous vote. The smart money is saying Norm Coleman will throw in the towel and not drag it out in the Federal Courts. ____________________
State Supreme Court rules for Franken, 5-0 By PAT DOYLE, Star Tribune
Last update: June 30, 2009 - 1:07 PM Print this story E-mail this story Save to del.icio.us Share on Facebook Share on Digg See complete coverage
More from U.S. Senate ¡Pawlenty says he'll follow court's ruling on Senate
|
|
|
Post by Chicawolverina on Jun 30, 2009 21:27:08 GMT -5
Ricckardo, Out-O-Sight M'Ladd! Typical right-wing obstructionist tactic in attempt to keep him out as long as they can drag it out, KKK-Republican/KKK-Libertarian vermin. I hope progressive things and a rational based government can emerge. He'll get back-pay too I hope! ><Tomasina Chicawolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Jul 7, 2009 12:45:43 GMT -5
Here's the Rubublican National Committee's salute to Al. Althugh it's meant as an attack, all I can say is that it makes me cheer!
|
|
|
Post by shawnhs on Jul 7, 2009 22:03:27 GMT -5
What do you know - Al Franken's first vote is to keep a $6m program even the President thinks is wasteful. - Goooooo Socialists!!!
I don't see the video as an attack. It is pointing out truths. If someone likes those truths then vote Socialist... I mean Democrat in the next elections. If someone doesn't like the things pointed out in the video then they should vote Republican. I don't care whatever a person's party is as long as it doesn't agree with keeping the Socialists (doh) I mean Democrats into fast tracking the country down the tubes.
Have you noticed over the last 6 months everything the Democrats want done is a crisis, and must be fast tracked and voted on before anyone can read what's in the bills?
|
|
|
Post by Chicawolverina on Jul 7, 2009 22:30:28 GMT -5
"Have you noticed over the last 6 months everything the Democrats want done is a crisis, and must be fast tracked and voted on before anyone can read what's in the bills?" Shawnhs! Ehhhh.... Look, you know I can see it when you write stuff! But, what you just said is a mirror for exactly what the extremist in the Fascist party during the last "W" administration did to get US installed in Iraq, that's just what our enemies wanted to happen too. You seem to be very tone-def to these nuances, it's not nearly as B&W as what you think. Give your brain a chance, I know you have good in you! RICCKHARDO! I see yer point. LOL ><Tomasina ChicaWolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Jul 8, 2009 12:56:44 GMT -5
To have a truly filibuster-proof Senate, we need from 5 to 10 more Democratic Senators to offset the Blue-Dogs who often side with the Repubs.
|
|