In his posted, Eric Kleefeld has stated: "Coleman's lawyers might have a point in arguing that this matter properly belongs with the court handling his lawsuit against the election result". This is fair enough.

And he go on to state: "But one line in the filing is pretty telling: 'Coleman is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect his interests.'"

I am no "legal beaver", but given the fact that Coleman's lawyers are not legal dummies, I would suggest that there is some legal reasoning behind this phrase. What might that legal reasoning be?

Eric doesn't offer any suggestions. Rather, he decided to makes a glib pronouncement that what Coleman was really saying is that: "If these votes are counted, I'll be in even worse trouble than I am already."

Really? Is this really the import of the lines that Eric refers? Is this what Coleman and his lawyers really meant?

Or were Coleman and his lawyers really making the claim, in legal terms, that "the disposition of the action" might "impair or impede" Coleman's ability to have a fair hearing. I think that in the context of Coleman's motion, my explanation is at least plausible; whereas Eric's "plain English" pronounce is really nothing more than a very snarky, fully unsupportable, dumb-ass remark that does little to help anyone understand maneuvering now taking place between the Franken and Coleman legal teams. (It would appear that both Franken and Coleman are now throwing everything at the legal wall, trying to see what might or might not stick.)

The is an important election. It is important for a number of reasons, one of which is that it is serving as a model of a bipartisan commitment to electoral integrity.

I would have expected that TMP would have offered something resembling "informed comment". At least that's my "dumb-ass opinion". Why has Franken filed two legal challenges: one with the three judge panel; one with the Minnesota Supreme Court? Why do both challenges appear to be so weak, at least on the surface? Almost frivolously? Are they really as weak as they appear? If so, why would Franken peruse those challenges? If they are frivolous, wouldn't perusing then have the very really possibility of damaging Franken's image with members of the public. And there there is such a risk, why would he take it? Is there a possibility that Franken's lawyer believe that Franken's odd before the 3 judge panel might be weaker than the public's perception? Is there a chance that Franken's lawyers(unlike Eric? and many of his followers)do not assume that a Franken victory is necessarily "a done-deal"?

Oh, by the way: Is Reid's failure to peruse the seating of Franken really due to Reid's "lack of spine" or was Reid's raising the idea of seating Franken evidence of a serious "mental lapse on Reid's part? Inquiring minds might want to know? Perhaps, the "informed comment" at TPM might addresses this question straight on".

Parenthetically, Mark Ritchie has referred to Reid's calling for the immediate seating of Franken as "horse puckey." I agree with Mark.

Here is another question. Are the Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (Democrat) and the Governor Tim Pawlenty (Republican) together derelict in not signing an election certification for Al Franken? (Comments would suggest that Eric and some of his follower's buy into some kind of dereliction theory.) But isn't the real reason for the unwillingness of Ritchie and Pawlenty to sign an election certification at this time that Minnesota election law does not allow for that signing at this time. I would think that inquiring minds might like to know. Eric, where are you?