Simple –
Your statment is false.
The court told the parties to agree on which ballots were improperly rejected. Those they agreed on were reopened and now Coleman (and Franken, if he wishes) get a chance to say more should have been opened).
The Coleman campaign has not been denied a chance to make its argument. It is doing so now. But what it now wishes to do is to open (and presumably count) all 12,000 rejected absentee ballots – whether they were clearly properly rejected or not. They want no legal standard applied in opening the ballots – a very odd position.
They are clearly reading the Supreme Court’s mangled opinion in Bush v. Gore and hoping that if they can make chaos out of what has been an orderly process, the US Supreme Court will order a new election.
Instead, if they think some absentee ballots were improperly rejected, they should point out which ones and why.
That they refuse to do so suggests that Republicans are willing to waste millions of taxpayer dollars in tough times to simply delay the game.
I suspect the real goal is to enhance the Republican ability to filibuster in the Senate for a few more months.

You tell me why Franken can have rejected absentee ballots from predominately democratic precincts counted while Coleman CANNOT have rejected absentee ballots from predominately republican precincts counted?

“This is a new low – even for a campaign whose primary recount strategy is to attack local election officials in the hopes of finding new votes they can throw into the recount. The Franken campaign’s shameless exploitation of individual Minnesotans in order to further their political agenda is simply offensive. For Al Franken, the campaign clearly has not stopped, and today they’ve shown once again how low they will sink by attacking the work of local election officials as they seek to change the outcome of the Senate race.”
http://www.mngop.com/NewsBack.aspx?guid=c19b9f4e-d748-4c61-991b-dd127fa68824

It’s a desperation move, but Franken’s best rejoinder is to say he has no objection to reviewing any rejected ballots, provided they include the vetoed ballots. The chutzpah of Coleman accusing Franken of doing the opposite of what Franken has been doing while Coleman advocates the opposite of his position up until now is amazing.