Coleman's Lawsuit Hits First Possible Bump In The Road
If Norm Coleman was hoping for the three-judge panel that will be hearing his election lawsuit to be stacked in his favor, he's out of luck. The state Supreme Court just announced that the person in charge of the appointments to that panel will be Associate Justice Alan Page.
Page, the former NFL star and current jurist, was not particularly kind to the Coleman campaign's legal arguments in the lawsuits that came up so far in this case. Coleman might have done better had one of the court's conservatives been put in charge.
Normally the appointments would be made by Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, but Magnuson recused himself because he sat on the same state canvassing board that Coleman is suing to overturn. And Page was next in line.
Then again, if Coleman loses the trial he might appeal on this one, too.
Olay! The fight begins.
So, will Franken be seated in, say, June?
January 7, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quimby's been doing enough to annoy the MN Supreme Court justices during the recount that it might not matter who makes the appointments. And this mess will inevitably result in a full MNSC hearing before it's over.
My question is more whether the Federal courts will toss it, because it is, at end, a state jurisdictional matter. And you know Slimy Norman will run to the Feds when (not if, when) he loses at the state level.
January 7, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple People Eater!
January 7, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!!! I'm still hoping for a big Alan Page head slap upside Norm's dome to end this whole kerfluffel.
January 7, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. Maybe someone can Photoshop former senator coleman's puss on the redskins player here for the full effect:
http://64.17.171.58/images/page%201.jpg
January 7, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This can't possibly be the same Norm Coleman who, just after the November election, pleaded with Franken to not purse a recount, can it?
I hope every court that Norm appears in tells him to take a hike.
January 7, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely live in fear of Norman holding out until Scalia and Thomas jump into action and try to make it a federal issue of equal protection or some pumped up bullshit. Nothing would please the right wing more than having the right wing Mafia thugs on the USSC over rule the state court and snatch away the seat.
January 7, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't 2000, when the scam was new, and the Democrats and the reporters just stood there in catatonic shock, as GOP operatives made melodramatic statements about bringing the country together and not putting it through the trauma and pain of uncertainty and blah blah blah... and Conventional Wisdom became that the election was over, and Al Gore had lost. Before the votes were counted. And that it was "okay" not to count them. It was full court press shock and awe, and the opinion leaders rolled-over.
I am sorry. But there is no way in Hell or in 2009 that the citizens of Minnesota... or the American public in general... are simply going to allow an election to be recounted legitimately, upheld, sent to the courts, upheld, sent to the appeals courts, upheld... only to have Justices Antonin Scalia and Stepin Fetchit overturn all the sound law and install the Rethug again.
That is a real old movie in this country, and we've all seen it by now. We're all hep to the jive, so to speak. We are talking blood in the streets, if they try pulling that again, nine years after the first con went down. And, could you blame the American people, at that point?
January 7, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that there was no one in 2000 that would overrule the SCOTUS. Theoretically the House could have refused to accept the Florida electors, but with the House being controlled by Republicans, that wasn't going to happen. In this case the Constitution is pretty explicit in who has the final say in judging elections. I don't think Reid is blowing smoke when he says that there is no way Coleman will be accepted by the Senate as a legitimate winner.
January 7, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
...in the normal pro-forma 5-4 Republican ruling, yes.
January 7, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
shame on Coleman for trying to overturn the will of the people!
January 7, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NY Times had a story about Minnesotans' views of this. Norm needs to start thinking about his political future in Minnesota. He probably could get big brownie points for conceding gracefully.
As if that's ever going to happen.
January 7, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has no political future in Minnesota if he loses this.
January 7, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he may not have a financial future either with all the bucks that he's forking over to his attorneys. And with the pending criminal investigation, he'll be dishing out a lot more money just to avoid jail-time.
January 7, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, the photo caption says it all; "Former Senator Norm Coleman."
January 7, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Star Tribune's editorial cartoon nails its former senator with his own words:
http://www.startribune.com/galleries/37203374.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1PciUoaEYY_4PcUU
January 7, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Eric
You state: If Norm Coleman was hoping for the three-judge panel that will be hearing his election lawsuit to be stacked in his favor, he's out of luck.
I am not sure as to whether your thinking on this matter is well founded. Do you have an evidence what so ever that the Minnesota Supreme Court is "politicized". If so, where is it. I am not aware of any?
The fact that Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson (who has had strong ties to Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty) worked hand-in-hand with Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to ensure the integrity of the Coleman/Franken recount is emblematic of Minnesota's commitment to "electoral integrity".
That belief that electoral integrity has a higher value than party politics has a long tradition embedded in Minnesota's political culture. And this is why the choice of Alan Page by Magnuson as the justice to select the three judge panel for hearing Coleman challenge should be neither a win nor loss for Coleman.
Now if you have evidence that the selection of Page is a disadvantage for Coleman,(that "Coleman might have done better had one of the court's conservatives been put in charge"), then "spill the beans". If you don't, the you should retract your statement. You may not intend this but your opining on the idea that the Minnesota Supreme Court is lined up along partisans lines is not only a disservice to our courts (and to our states political traditions) but it also feeds directly into Wall Street Journal editorial this Monday that tried to discredit the work of the Canvassing Board and the recount process by suggesting that the Canvassing Board (which included two Minnesota Supreme Court Justices -- both of whom were Pawlenty appointees and two District Courts Judges) had a pro-Franken partisan bias. In making suggestion that the Page selection might be to Coleman's disadvantage, you are in fact reinforcing the Journal's hair-brain notions.
(Note: Justice Edward Cleary who is a member of the Minnesota Canvassing Board has written a letter to the Wall Street Journal criticizing that editorial for, among other things, being "long on partisan tones and short on accurate reporting". The body of Cleary's letter can be found in David Brauer's MinnPost article of Jan. 6th entitled RECOUNT JUDGE BLASTS WALL STREET JOURNAL (See: http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2009/01/06/5639/recount_judge_blasts_wall_street_journal).
Of course, it is possible that you might have some facts to justify your contention (and the Wall Street's Journals "inaccurate reporting").
January 7, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric is writing his opinion here based on his read of the recent opinions of Page with respect to Coleman. I don't think needs to cross-reference any of his statements to post it on this site. This call for a retraction is way over the top.
January 7, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the post the same way Stephen did. In saying Coleman might have done better with one of the more conservative judges in charge, Eric is (perhaps inadvertently) implying that politics is coming into play. Both the MN-SC and the Canvassing board have done an extraordinary job of being fair and thorough. I don't think Coleman's chances are worth a plugged nickel no matter which of the court's justices are put in charge.
January 7, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If one were to phrase it in terms of philosophical or ideological outlook, rather than partisan sympathies, it is entirely reasonable to infer that Page's oversight will not create an advantage for Coleman. The MnSC is definitely not a partisan court, but if one could pick the justice least simpatico with Coleman and his ilk that would likely be Page.
January 7, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any way you can say that without also implying that the case would be decided on something other than the facts and the law? It seems to me one must follow from the other.
January 7, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stephen, Don't get your panties in a bunch. I read Eric's post as meaning Alan Page is going to bring the same fair and impartial approach to the appointment of the three judge panel as he and the rest of the Minnesota Supreme Court have brought to this entire affair.
It is pretty clear that Minnesota courts aren't politicized in the same way as courts in some other states, and Minnesotans really believe in the integrity of the vote.
I have to tell you that after following the facts and reading the previous Minnesota Supreme Court decisions in this case, I don't hold out much hope for Coleman's case. They have pretty much telegraphed that they believe the Canvassing Board has been extraordinarily fair. The courts are not going to be inclined to overturn the CB's work.
January 7, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ronbyers
Eric suggested that Allen Page (who has Democrat linage) might be less advantageous to Coleman than a conservative justice. The import of Eric's comment is that a conservative Minnesota Supreme Court Justice would be more incline to be pro-Coleman -- which in turn suggests that the Minnesota Supreme Court is a "partisan court". If he thinks there is evidence for believing that such a bias exists within the court, then he should "put is money were is mouth is". The the conduct of our justices so far suggests they have not engaged in partisanship. On this you and I seem to be in agreement.
However, there are wingnuts out there trying to discredit the recount process by charging that it has been tainted by partisan politics. (The Wall Street Journal editorial is but one example.) To put this idea another way, there is an effort afoot to undermine legitimacy of a Franken victory. Eric's comment -- perhaps unwittingly -- reinforces the idea of the "partisanship", and idea which is put forth in order to delegitimize a Franken victory.
Again, If Eric has any evidence that Franken would have been put at a disadvantage by the section of a "conservative" justice to appoint the 3 judge panel for hearing Coleman's challenge, then he should "spill the beans".
With regards to Coleman's odds of winning, everything I have read suggests that they are very, very low. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court's rulings so far have not been "against" Coleman. Rather, as I understand it, the Supreme Court ruled that issues brought to the Supreme Court by the Coleman campaign were not within that court's purview but instead be could taken to the 3 judge panel hearing a challenge during a legal contest.
By the way, if you wish to criticize by critique, your case is not helped by making insulting comments about me.
January 7, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was giving Eric the benefit of the doubt, but you have to admit that ever since 2000 the traditional American belief in the rule of law has been under sustained attack. It seems that from the get go the Bush administration and the conservative Federalist Society lawyers they have consistently appointed to the bench have treated the law and the constitution and "g.. d...." pieces of paper to be spit upon or ignored. In fact it is George Bush's many hackish appointments to the Federal Bench and his obvious policy of politicizing the DOJ that worry me the most about his presidency.
All that said, from my observation of the Minnesota state court system in this case, it is clear that the Minnesota Supreme Court believes in the Rule of Law, the Wall Street Journal Editoral Board not with standing.
January 7, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, where did I make an insulting comment about you? The panties line? Where I come from that is generally considered a request that someone take a couple of deep breaths. I wasn't insulting, I was calling for you to consider how over the top your lengthy argument sounds.
January 7, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once Burriss is seated, I would expect that Reid will try and seat Franken "without prejudice" just as they did with Landrieu a few years back and with a Republican majority in the Senate.
That method would probably not be filibustered successfully as virtually everyone in the know thinks Al will win this thing.
But you got to get Burriss seated first (maybe Friday or Monday).
January 7, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that Franken will not have a valid certificate since MN state law prevents them from certifying a winner until all court challenges are played out. No way Franken will be seated without it.
January 7, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might? Might? Really? Might? Come on, this is farging Norm Coleman we are typing about . . . WILL is the word.
January 7, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink