Comments on: Expert: Franken’s future now depends on how judges handle equal-protection claims

By: athar murtuza

athar murtuza — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:41:13 +0000

coleman, the carpetbagger from brooklyn should leave Minnesota and go back to where he was begotten and he should take his carpets with him. good riddance to bad rubbish!

By: time is up

time is up — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:06:56 +0000

Time is up. This delay tactic is getting ridiculous and Pawlenty will pay for that.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:00:58 +0000

Bush v. Gore set no precedent. It is in the majority opinion written that infamous day when democracy was stolen by the court. Let’s not encourage them to do it again, please.

By: Adam Hominem

Adam Hominem — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:44:02 +0000

Not a lawyer but to me the wild card is indeed the Federal courts. A SCOTUS even more right-wing than the one that in 2000 rendered the unsupportable Bush v. Gore could do damn near anything.

Interesting to me the cite of Bush v. Gore when I believe that decision specifically says it is not to be used as precedent. Will the new Court indeed us it as precedent? Depends on whether they have any sense of shame, I guess. We’ll see.

By: Chris Steller

Chris Steller — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:57:27 +0000

Thanks for the comment, John. Ned Foley’s point (as I understand it) is that the panel has some outstanding motions from Coleman’s side that it still needs to rule on, that involve equal-protection issues. How well these judges set the table for the MN Supreme Court on that issue will be crucial in whether the argument has any legs at all, including in federal courts.

By: John In MN

John In MN — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:38:21 +0000

This panel will not even consider equal protection, IF Coleman were to succeed in his equal protection claim (that the procees is so flawed we need to redo it) that would invalidate the entire election. All (REPEAT ALL!!!!) offices that resulted from last novembers election would need to be vacated, and new special elections held – either supervised by the courts, or under new statute rapidly poassed by the legislature,

I don’t thinkany court wants to do that.