« Obama Budget Chief: Stimulus Bill Contracts Are Going Online | Home | Cheney Takes On Torture, The Flaws Of The Iraqi People, And The Deaths In Iraq »
Minnesota Supremes: Franken Can Ask For His Immediate Certification...In Three Weeks
The Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to hear Al Franken's lawsuit asking that they order Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to issue him a certificate of election -- his ticket to Washington -- while Norm Coleman's lawsuit to overturn the election result is still pending.
The catch: They will hear the arguments on February 5. So Franken will have to wait another three weeks just to argue that he should get a certificate immediately.
Now who knows, maybe the court could end up agreeing to grant the certificate if the litigation is still dragging on by then. But they're content to let the process keep working itself out for a little while longer.
Advertisement
They're threading a middle ground. They have to give Coleman his day in court. But I think they're also giving a not-so-subtle message to Coleman not to diddle around.
January 14, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
His ticket to Washington is Harry Reid growing a pair. The certificate is irrelevant. There is NOTHING that requires the Senate to wait for it.
January 14, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if he's waiting for Harry to grow a pair, he might as well forget about politics and go back to SNL.
January 14, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or Harry could just get these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMwgV7QqghI
January 14, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say Steve, I am not sure if I understand you. Are you claiming that the U.S. Senate (and the Senate Democrats under the leadership of Harry Reid) have the constitutional authority to seat Al Franken as Minnesota's junior senator -- even though Franken as not officially been certified. If so, under what authority? Constitutional authority?
I think that this has been your position. Am I mistaken?
January 14, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Article I, sections 4 and 5. There's also substantial precedence for provisional seatings of this nature. If they really wanted to do it, they probably could...although they'd have to navigate a filibuster and a supreme court case, both of which would probably be hostile.
January 14, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Article I gives the Senate SOLE authority to determine who has been elected. They could decide to seat him permanently now if they so chose. This is not like some of the other cases people have been citing- this would a case of the Senate judging the election returns, for which Article I explicitly gives it sole authority. I doubt the US Supreme Court would even agree to hear a challenge- even the conservative Justices can read, and few things in the Constitution are more unambiguous.
January 15, 2009 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members...
January 15, 2009 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no doubt that the Senate COULD seat him. Rule II requiring a certificate is a Senate Rule and they can change it if they wish (although it could be filibustered by the R's). But to expect them to waive a rule that has been in place for 125 years (especially after standing firm on it with regard to Burris) is unrealistic. Not. Gonna. Happen.
January 15, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Franken doesn't dot all the i's and misses crossing one t, the repugs will have a hissy-fit right up to the mid-term elections the Democrats stole the election ... so let this take it's course.
January 14, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
His ticket to Washington is Harry Reid growing a pair.
The only thing Harry is likely to grow a pair of is shrinking violets.
That's why his nickname is "Give 'em Hell (and anything else they ask for) Harry"
January 15, 2009 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Supes will hear this on Feb 5th...and Coleman's suit gets heard (where?) on Feb 9th!
Guess them dang activist judges be showing that favoritizm agin, eh?!
January 14, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I missing something or is the National Democratic Party absent from this battle between Franken and Coleman? Where is the DSCC?
January 15, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably the same place Harry is- head-up-assville. Sigh.
January 15, 2009 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well JohnW -- the Democrats in the Senate passed an organizing resolution that assumes 59 Senators, which means that they assume Franken will be among them.
I assume the DSCC has done its bit to fund the recount attorney bills.
But there is really no need for people to be out here in the 20 below zero weather making noise -- everything is moving along in an orderly way, according to law -- and the Minnesota Public is beginning to realize we need our second Senator.
January 15, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink