<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Senate recount: What&#8217;s next?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://minnesotaindependent.com/22433/us-senate-recount-whats-next/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/22433/us-senate-recount-whats-next</link>
	<description>News. Politics. Media.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:43:11 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Phoenix Woman</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/22433/us-senate-recount-whats-next/comment-page-1#comment-22620</link>
		<dc:creator>Phoenix Woman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=22433#comment-22620</guid>
		<description>Norm probably can&#039;t take this to the Federal level, for the simple reason that for him to win his case would overturn law that has already been tested and settled at the Federal level.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/01/07/franken-coleman-recount-update-010709-the-escalation-of-the-smears/#comment-23080&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A commenter at FDL explained it for us the other day:&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;Ironically, the whole Minnesota Recount system and statute law is based on the foundation of the decisions in the MN Governor’s recount case in 1962-63, Anderson V. Rolvaag. That decision is actually addressed in Bush v. Gore to the argument that State Election Law prevails in State Elections. The court in 2000 had to argue around Anderson v. Rolvaag on the grounds that the Constitution set a deadline for Florida’s vote count — the date of the Electoral College meeting. That exception would not apply to Minnesota, as we have no deadlines other than requirements as to when trials have to begin in a Contest. So in essence Bush v. Gore actually recognized Anderson v. Rolvaag as the lead precedent, the settled law. So no, I don’t predict it will successfully get into Federal Court. In &#039;63 the case went through the Federal Courts — the decision Anderson v. Rolvaag was written by the 8th Circuit Appeals Court, and affirmed by the Warren Supreme Court. So given this — I don’t think the Feds will even look at the case.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Norm probably can&#8217;t take this to the Federal level, for the simple reason that for him to win his case would overturn law that has already been tested and settled at the Federal level.  <a href="http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/01/07/franken-coleman-recount-update-010709-the-escalation-of-the-smears/#comment-23080" rel="nofollow">A commenter at FDL explained it for us the other day:</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Ironically, the whole Minnesota Recount system and statute law is based on the foundation of the decisions in the MN Governor’s recount case in 1962-63, Anderson V. Rolvaag. That decision is actually addressed in Bush v. Gore to the argument that State Election Law prevails in State Elections. The court in 2000 had to argue around Anderson v. Rolvaag on the grounds that the Constitution set a deadline for Florida’s vote count — the date of the Electoral College meeting. That exception would not apply to Minnesota, as we have no deadlines other than requirements as to when trials have to begin in a Contest. So in essence Bush v. Gore actually recognized Anderson v. Rolvaag as the lead precedent, the settled law. So no, I don’t predict it will successfully get into Federal Court. In &#8216;63 the case went through the Federal Courts — the decision Anderson v. Rolvaag was written by the 8th Circuit Appeals Court, and affirmed by the Warren Supreme Court. So given this — I don’t think the Feds will even look at the case.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
