GOP eyes Bush v. Gore to save Coleman seat

[kpete]

Source: Politico

A state court could rule any day now on Norm Coleman’s challenge to Al Franken’s 225-vote lead in Minnesota, but the race may be far from over no matter what the judges say.

Top Republicans are encouraging Coleman to be as litigious as possible and take his fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if he loses this round, believing that an elongated court fight is worth it if they can continue to deny Democrats the 59th Senate seat that Franken would represent.

And in pushing a possible Supreme Court conclusion, Republicans are raising case history that makes Democrats shudder: Bush v. Gore.

Coleman’s team says the different methods Minnesota counties use for counting absentee ballots violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause — echoing the same 2000 Florida recount case that effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush. By making a constitutional case, Republicans are already looking ahead to federal court.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20084.html

[rocktivity]

1. From Politico,

politics' answer to TMZ.

:boring:
rocktivity

[scubadude]

2. Didn't the Supremes express that that case should not be used as precedent?

They knew they were opening up a huge can of worms but did it anyway.

Scuba

[No Elephants]

10. The SCOTUS's pet pig, Scalia, recently commented on that, as follows: "Get over it."

[Myrina]

11. Yes.

n/t

[No Elephants]

12. If you wish, you can read the SCOTUS opinion in Bush v. Gore right

here http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html (does not include separate concurring or dissenting opinions)


And here is an abstract. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/


IMO, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas had one hell of a nerve deciding how Florida state law is "made."

[No Elephants]

13. Catch 22, though. The part of the Bush v. Gore opinion that said that

the case is not be used as precedent is itself not valid precedent.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html

[LynnTheDem]

14. Yep. But ya know how it goes with republicans.

Hypocrisy. It's what they are.

[Pastiche423]

28. What Vincent Bugliosi said in his book,

The Betrayal of America:

Pg. 59

" Unbelievably, the Court (The Felonius Five) wrote that its ruling was limited to the present circunstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processess generally presents many complexities."

- snip -

In other words, the Court, in effect, was saying its ruling "only applied to those future cases captioned Bush vs Gore. In all other equal protection voting cases, litigants should refer tro prior decisions of this court."

[havocmom]

3. Sucks to be them; DEMs have learned a tough lesson from that mistake

GOP STILL thinks they can win through tantrums? Spank them. Hard.

[Le Taz Hot]

4. Oh, Wait! This is too good!

Do we all remember that one of the provisos of Bush v. Gore was that IT DIDN'T SET PRECEDENCE? It was the first time in the USSC's 212 year history (at that time) that a ruling DIDN'T set precedence! Oh, THAT just bit them in the ass big time! :rofl:

[SpiralHawk]

5. Republicons don't give a diaper-load of crap about precedents, law, or morality

They care about money, power, control, and deviancy.

[Uncle Joe]

18. I agree in total, SpiralHawk. n/t

[DCKit]

6. In the meantime, they further alienate honorable Republicans...

while continuing to piss off the rest of U.S. in their continuing subversion of Democracy.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

[Submariner]

7. I'm surprised the unemployed citizens of Minnesota

haven't marched into Coleman's office and beat the crap out of him. Didn't Coleman say on Nov 5th or so that Franken should concede the race so as not to deny the state constituents their Senatorial representation? What a flaming hypocrite.

Any MN DU'ers? What do the people of Minnesota have to say in the newspaper opinion pages? Anything? I'd be pissed.

[jwirr]

9. One of the things that is big in Minnesota is rule of law. We tend to

trust our government to do what it is supposed to do - follow the law. Yes, we are mad at coleman and his ilk for refusing to accept defeat but we also know that his example is revealing the true nature of the GOP. We will win in the end. One thing - if coleman wants to go further then I want it to be done by the law - not the courts but the congress. Both the US and Minnesota congress branches are controlled by the Democratic Party.

[NJmaverick]

8. The GOP is a bunch of fucking hypocrites

remember when they were all calling for Gore to conceed and saying how all the litigation was a bad thing? Fucking assholes!

[old guy]

15. When I saw they were the source, I quickly moved on.

You night just as well source Drudge.

[old guy]

16. When I saw they were the source, I quickly moved on.

You might just as well source Drudge.

[Jefferson23]

17. I have to admit, on one level, I welcome the SCOTUS to hear this

case, presumably, if this case were even heard by the court and used similar arguments as is the suggestion, and if another split decision was rendered, would the decision be once again labeled as not for use as precedent?

I really don't want to see Franken held up, enough of this bullshit already, but yet, I would love to see the schmucks on the court forced into a legal corner and see just how they would word it this time around.

[AndyTiedye]

19. NOOOOOO! The Supreme Court Will Have Another "Bush v. Gore" Moment

and install Coleman somehow. Surely it is obvious that they will do this.

[Jefferson23]

20. Well, I'm not so sure about that, they can't rely on their own case law.

The precedent that is not a precedent, could be a real problem for them. As I said, what I really want to see is Franken seated as Senator, asap.

[AndyTiedye]

27. The Supreme Court WILL NOT Let That Happen!

Law? What do they care about the law? Hain't they got the power?

[apnu]

21. That would be brilliant!

From what I understand of Bush v. Gore (and it is admitibly little) the SCOTUS stopped the counting when Bush was a head and said that's the number of votes.

So if we play out that non-precedent (Scalia said so) and Franken is 225 votes ahead, then WHEEE!!! Franken is in and we have 59 seats!

[Supersedeas]

30. compounding a national crisis with national division

[unblock]

22. but how would this help coleman? he's LOSING the recount.

bush v gore was used to stop the recount and certify whoever was winning at that point.

the supremos would have to go through even more remarkable contortions to not only halt all litigation, but also to revert the recount back to some point when coleman was ahead, then order the mn sos to certify THAT result.

they might do that for a presidential race, but not for a mere senator.

if they DID, the dems in the senate should go nuclear and take away the filibuster power.

[ShortnFiery]

23. What about the GOP's mantra "States Rights rule supreme" ?

Hypocrites :thumbsdown:

[fjc]

25. Only sessionsists believe in states rights.

[Festivito]

24. Or, it's just SMOKE while they keep Franken and US waiting.

Waiting for a one-RWer vote difference in the Senate instead of two vote difference.

SCOTUS allowed the vote, provided it was recounted in the remaining couple of hours -- impossible for six-million votes with no prior warning.

The case has no use for Coleman, except as a smoke screen that hides them wasting our time.

[dragonlady]

26. The equal protection argument would be a tough one to make

The initial recount was overseen by five-person board including two Minnesota Supreme Court justices, and then the contest Coleman was entitled to by Minnesota statute was heard by the three-person Election Contest Court. Both established firm procedures for counting the ballots and ruling on whether certain ballots would be in or out. There may have been slight differences between counties, but it would be very hard for Coleman to prevail in saying that the system was riddled with error. There comes a point that we must recognize that no election or recount can be run with absolutely no variation from procedure. Minnesota, from what I've read, came as close to perfection as a group of humans could get in this recount. Besides that, Coleman's team put on an inept case and failed to show enough actual evidence of errors to change enough votes to erase Franken's lead.

[Mz Pip]

29. Isn't it kind of late?

Bush v Gore stopped the recount. In MN the recount has proceeded to its conclusion. Coleman doesn't like the results. Seems Coleman should have taken this to SCOTUS at the very beginning of the process when he was ahead. That's what Bush did.

[truthisfreedom]

31. You have a point. I believe the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case, after Franken wins.

The reason the pukes are preparing for a SCOTUS case is that they KNOW coleman has lost already.