"We all remember Bush v. Gore."--Senator Mitch McConnell, urging Norm Coleman

[kpete]

Quote of the Day

"We all remember Bush v. Gore."

--Senator Mitch McConnell, urging Norm Coleman to take his Minnesota Senate election contest all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary. The trial just ended.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid signaled Friday he had no appetite to prolong the case.

"The Minnesota courts' ruling deserves respect and five million citizens of Minnesota deserve full representation in the U.S. Senate as soon as possible. Norm Coleman wanted his day in court, and we respect that," Reid said. "He's gotten seven weeks. We all await the outcome from the three-judge panel."

“It's not up to me, but I, like most Minnesotans, want to know who won the election,” McConnell said. “And it appears to me we don't know that yet. I assume Sen. Coleman will pursue all opportunities to try to get an accurate count.”

McConnell said that Coleman’s team seems to have been laying the groundwork for a federal appeals challenge by citing the 2000 Supreme Court case in Bush v. Gore, which ended the Florida recount. McConnell argued that the equal protection clause of the Constitution ensures that each county should use similar standards in counting its ballots, which the Coleman campaign asserts was not done in Minnesota.

“We all remember Bush v. Gore,” McConnell said.

more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090313/pl_politico/19974

[NavyDavy]

1. repukes, sore losers every last one of them

[DebbieCDC]

2. For the umpteenth time - they CANNOT use Bush v. Gore

It was "decided" for that case alone -- cannot be used as a precedent. That's what the pukes wanted in 2000 so a Dem could never cite to that case as a precedent. And the SCOTUS gave it to them. NOW LIVE WITH IT NORMY!

[tangent90]

4. And you are sure the SC won't change their mind on that issue of precedence?

I can think of 4 of them who wouldn't hesitate for one fucking minute.
:grr:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Well, 5 is all WE need to prevent a repeat of "Bush V. Gore."

and, frankly, I'm not sure that most of them, including even the wingnuts on the court, would want to stick their necks out for Coleman. I could be wrong about that, of course, but I had the impression that SCOTUS curiously stated that Bush V. Gore should NOT be construed as precedent, so Coleman's case would, IF it ever gets heard, without the benefit of precedent, as well as a change in membership since then. My prediction is that if Coleman tries to take it all the way to SCOTUS it will probably not even be heard. At this point he is an ex-Senator walking IMHO. He just isn't ready to admit it to himself.

[tangent90]

9. You're probably right but a 5 to 4 majority doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies

knowwhatimean?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. I agree

It doesn't give me "warm fuzzies" either but again I'm not sure the wingnuts are going to stick out their necks for COLEMAN like they did for Bush or probably would have for McCain- had the last election been as close as 2000 anyway. Besides, I don't even think SCOTUS can constitutionally keep stepping into what are supposed to be STATE-RUN elections and if they do, does that mean that the ACLU can start filing loads of Equal Protection cases that surely must just be waiting to be filed on behalf of lots of.....ahem......Democratic-leaning districts all over the country. Come to think of it, I actually think that that might not be such a bad precedent for SCOTUS to set because lord only knows exactly how many people have been (wrongfully) disenfranchised over the years- particularly during the last eight- in regards to their voting rights.

[SpiralHawk]

6. "We republicon Homelanders don't give a shit about that." - McConnel

"You forget, we want America to fail, and we need another Homelander like Normie to help us in our crusade."

- McConnell

[Canuckistanian]

11. So Bush v. Gore can never be used for stare decisis?

Can the USSC unilaterally declare that and no court in the future could EVER use it?

[Tesha]

16. Of course they can use Bush v Gore if that's what Fat Tony and his cronies want to see used.

The Supreme Court has pretty free rein to use any damned rationale
that strikes their fancy. Didn't they prove that in Bush v Gore?

Tesha

[Radical Activist]

3. I remember how the Supreme Court stole an election

and ushered in eight years that nearly gave us a fascist dictatorship. I think I'll pass this time.

[malaise]

7. Ditto n/t

[marmar]

5. Ugh......How can the Repugs find so much human waste to put in a suit and send to Washington?

They're rancid. Every single one of them.

[justgamma]

10. That would be great.

Stop the recount immediately. After all, Franken is ahead.

[DCKit]

12. The Republicons seem to have so much time on their hands now. Did they run out of pages to blow?

Granted, the sex industry here in DC is going to collapse when they finally leave, but who cares?

Go home and bathe yourself in Kentucky Jelly Mitch. If you slather it, they might cum.

[UTUSN]

13. Do NOT piss me OFF, McConnell/asshat!!!!!!!! n/t

[steelmania75]

14. OMG it's just a senate seat, not the presidency in the balance.

Can't they just have another election? I'm sure Franklin would've won this time, by a much larger margin.

[gratuitous]

19. The candidate's name is "Franken"

And there is no provision in the law for another election. By the law and by the rules of the case that both parties have agreed to there is no question about the outcome. The only "controversy" remaining anymore is whether the Minnesota legislature will continue with their screwed up law that doesn't take into account a bad faith challenge to certified election results.

[L. Coyote]

17. Yes WE do, and We the People call it "Junta Day 2000"

[graywarrior]

18. Oy, he's such a rectal cankor