Comments on: Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Dietzen donated to Coleman ’08 campaign

By: Minnesota Central

Minnesota Central — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:25:27 +0000

It’s good to know but it may just “normal” contributions given to political candidates. It seemed unusual that there was a contribution at the end of 2001 but not one in 2002 when Coleman would have been looking for every dollar for his contest against Wellstone.

Can anyone provide any documentation of speeches, fundraising involvement or campaign work to support the Coleman candidacy ? If not, then this most likely an “arm twisted” contribution.

That said, I am more concerned about the message that Pawlenty is sending. On his January 2nd radio program, he denounced the MN-Supreme court’s order that either campaign can dismiss an absentee ballot; that was expressed before Coleman had filed his lawsuit. Now, when he is repeating the complaint (as he did last week on MSNBC), the case is in progress. Considering that Pawlenty appoints judges (including some that may hear an appeal to the MN-Supreme Court), this is undue influence. He is question the legal judgement of judges that he appointed and encouraging them to rule as he sees fit. This is a grave concern.

By: Randy

Randy — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:39:37 +0000

I’m going to agree with Ed. I think the situation would be quite different if he had donated to any of Coleman’s earlier campaigns, or to the Republican Party generally, but since these were donations to the campaign involved in this litigation, he should recuse himself.

Of course, that sets the decision up for complaints about its legitimacy coming from such a small panel. Complaints are inevitable, though, so what does it mater?

By: Ed Norton

Ed Norton — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:26:49 +0000

Hey, Ralphie boy – you godda be kiddin’ me.

The most recent donation was to the Coleman for Senate `08 campaign – the same campaign now working it’s way through the challenge process, and the one where Coleman has pretty much vowed to take to the MNSC.

To avoid even the appearance of partiality – the judge should recuse himself from hearing a case in which he’s made a donation to one of the participants.

Since he didn’t donate to the other parties’ campaign, he’s made his partiality clear and plain.

By: mill

mill — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:21:48 +0000

I believe he can give an independent and impartial judical opinion. I wish I believed that in the US Supreme Court Bush v. Gore decision.

By: Ralph Kramden

Ralph Kramden — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:53:59 +0000

I dunno. This is a pretty close case. Political contributions don’t fall under any of the usual categories requiring recusal. Certainly they may be seen as evidence of bias, but since they are not particularly recent, it might not be seen as standing in the way of impartiality. I believe Dietzen himself is the final arbiter for this decision. The circumstance certainly requires a comment from him – let’s see what he has to say.