Pawlenty saving himself for right time to say whether he’ll sign Senate certificate
Thursday, April 09, 2009 at 7:11 pm
For Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s fourth appearance on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” Wednesday night to discuss the Norm Coleman-Al Franken election-contest lawsuit, Maddow popped the question: “If Mr. Coleman appeals to the state Supreme Court, and then the state Supreme Court rules that one of these two men have won the election, you will sign an election certificate then, won’t you?”
“It’s premature to say that, based on a number of factors,” Pawlenty replied. “We just need more information as to evaluating this case.” Video after jump.
The state courts might decide he should wait to sign an election certificate until federal appeals run their course, he said. Or federal courts might accept a separate Coleman lawsuit based on equal-protection claims and impose a delay on state court proceedings.
And even aside from those scenarios, the governor said he wouldn’t uncap his signing pen until he sees “how harshly or strongly the issues have been dealt with” by state Supreme Court justices.
The Fix, a Washington Post blog, deemed the performance positively presidential.
Perhaps most impressive was his ability to keep an absolutely straight face during Maddow’s repeated and extended characterizations of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, as “gleeful” about the Minnesota Senate seat staying empty.
Here’s the video. If you want to skip Maddow’s intro on the election contest’s status, Pawlenty starts at the 3:30 mark.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
5 Comments
Comment posted April 9, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
Y’know, so far he’s right. I expected a full verdict from the ECC by now. (Has the clock started on appealing the decision on the first claim?) What’s the composition of the Supremes that will hear the appeal? Will Page recuse? (I doubt it.) How long to decide the appeal? (2 days, I would have guessed, but MN jurists are apparently much more careful than I expected.)
Comment posted April 9, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
Re: which justices will abstain, see this post: http://minnesotaindependent.com/31513/justices-magnuson-and-anderson-will-not-hear-senate-contest-appeal
Comment posted April 10, 2009 @ 6:56 am
Thanks, Chris. I saw that one. I was just wondering if Page was going to recuse because he chose the ECC panel. (I wouldn’t think so, but I’m not familiar with the finer points of judicial ethics.)
Comment posted April 10, 2009 @ 9:03 am
“We just need more information as to evaluating this case.” Translation: I have to see how this will play with the national Republicans before I can so much as think about it.
Comment posted April 16, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
The GOP argument: Because some invalid absentee ballots were accepted, all invalid absentee ballots should be accepted. (equal protection)
Basis for Charles Manson’s new appeal: “Because some people have gotten away with murder, I should get away with murder”
Right…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.






