Al Franken won the election last year the Senate. But we are almost half way through the year, and still Franken has not been able to take his seat in the Senate. Why, because Republicans are challenging the election. And it seems they are more focused on delaying rather than winning their case.

All judical rulings to date have been against Franken's opponent,coleman. Now coleman is in the process of appealing before the Minnesota supremes. The Minnesota supremes will not begin hearing oral arguements before June 1. And if coleman looses that appeal he has to take it before the US supremes...and we saw what they did with George II. Their Republican bias is legion.

When will Franken take his seat in the Senate? Will the supremes cave to their bias and again make law from the bench that puts a Republican in power and thwarts the will of the electorate? Are the Republican dominated supremes disenfranchising the electorate and democratic process? Unfortuantely, I think so.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/franken_coleman_showdown/2009/04/29/208833.html
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2009/04/29/8439/colemanfranken_and_the_signing_of_the_certificate_ did_pawlenty_budge

Al Franken won the election last year the Senate. But we are almost half way through the year, and still Franken has not been able to take his seat in the Senate. Why, because Republicans are challenging the election. And it seems they are more focused on delaying rather than winning their case.

All judical rulings to date have been against Franken's opponent,coleman. Now coleman is in the process of appealing before the Minnesota supremes. The Minnesota supremes will not begin hearing oral arguements before June 1. And if coleman looses that appeal he has to take it before the US supremes...and we saw what they did with George II. Their Republican bias is legion.

When will Franken take his seat in the Senate? Will the supremes cave to their bias and again make law from the bench that puts a Republican in power and thwarts the will of the electorate? Are the Republican dominated supremes disenfranchising the electorate and democratic process? Unfortuantely, I think so.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/franken_coleman_showdown/2009/04/29/208833.html
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2009/04/29/8439/colemanfranken_and_the_signing_of_the_certificate_ did_pawlenty_budge


Coleman refuses to accept his fate. Remember in 2000 when Republicans thought this was borderline treasonous? Remember the hordes of Republicans bursting the doors of the Florida precincts like drunken hooligans at a European soccer match? R. Congressman Paul Ryan as you know has recently conceded that most Republicans on capital hill have accepted the fact that Coleman has lost. So why does he keep on? To subvert Democracy just as you suggested.

Republicans are maniacal composite of traitorous wanna be Dictators. As Barack suggested, "If I meet you half way, and you can't walk away from the deal because you didn't get 100% of what you wanted". And that's what Republicans want. 100% of everything. They don't believe in Democracy, only their subjective viewpoint of it. That's why on 21% of the country currently identify themselves as Republicans.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. I wish it were not the case. Republican ditto heads remind me of Nazi Storm Troopers. To them, the only thing of importance is the party line. This is something I don't think the world fully appreciates or understands.

If you bothered to check the history of the 2008 Coleman / Franken election you might notice the reasons for contesting this election. I have paid close attention to these proceedings since November 4, in part because I used to live in Minnesota, and also because I want to know what the Minnesota Supreme Court (or U.S. Supreme Court) rules as far as the inconsistencies in the electoral process. My greatest concern is that there will not be an equal application of the law as the Consititution demands.

There have been confirmed cases of double-counting, inconsistent standards of ballot review, and witness testimonials relating to voter fraud. Not to mention that Minnesota does not require identification when you vote. All you need is someone to vouch as to your residence in that county. Witnesses also claim that people had voted in several counties. So before you go off and start ignorantly calling Republicans "ditto head Nazi Storm Troopers", why not get your facts straight instead. I don't care about Franken winning nearly as much as I care about these electoral processes being corrected so cases like this never happen again.

There have been confirmed cases of double-counting, inconsistent standards of ballot review, and witness testimonials relating to voter fraud.

Confirmed cases of double counting? By whom? Please provide a non-biased source that confirms your allegation.


Not to mention that Minnesota does not require identification when you vote.

Neither does California. Out of our last 6 elected Governors 4 of them were Republican, with the last one being recalled for supporting the same policies that Schwarzenegger actually put into law, like raising taxes and vehicle registration fee's just to name a few.


All you need is someone to vouch as to your residence in that county. Witnesses also claim that people had voted in several counties.

It's against the law to cast a vote outside of your registered precinct. Are you accusing your State of mass corruption? A conspiracy to deny Norm Coleman due process. The Minnesota Supreme court who ruled in Senator Franken's favor was comprised of 2 conservatives and 2 liberals. So is the Conservative Justice who voted in Franken's favor in on the conspiracy too?


before you go off and start ignorantly calling Republicans "ditto head Nazi Storm Troopers", why not get your facts straight instead. I don't care about Franken winning nearly as much as I care about these electoral processes being corrected so cases like this never happen again.

I'm sure you felt the complete opposite when Democrats were contesting the vast amount of irregularities in OH in 2004 and Florida in 2000.

If you bothered to check the history of the 2008 Coleman / Franken election you might notice the reasons for contesting this election. I have paid close attention to these proceedings since November 4, in part because I used to live in Minnesota, and also because I want to know what the Minnesota Supreme Court (or U.S. Supreme Court) rules as far as the inconsistencies in the electoral process. My greatest concern is that there will not be an equal application of the law as the Consititution demands.

There have been confirmed cases of double-counting, inconsistent standards of ballot review, and witness testimonials relating to voter fraud. Not to mention that Minnesota does not require identification when you vote. All you need is someone to vouch as to your residence in that county. Witnesses also claim that people had voted in several counties. So before you go off and start ignorantly calling Republicans "ditto head Nazi Storm Troopers", why not get your facts straight instead. I don't care about Franken winning nearly as much as I care about these electoral processes being corrected so cases like this never happen again.

Bottom line, so what? Republicans always make these claims when they loose...witness George II in Florida. It does not make them right or even correct. The Franken - Coleman case has been ajudicated in the courts. It there was proof of wrong doing, it would have surfaced. But it did not.

The only way Coleman is going to win is if he gets the judicary to declare him the winner as the supremes did in 2000 for George II.

Yeah, tell me about how serious you are about the electorial process. Where were you when the will of the people, the electors, in Florida was overriden by the Republican supremes?

Bottom line, so what? Republicans always make these claims when they loose...witness George II in Florida. It does not make them right or even correct. The Franken - Coleman case has been ajudicated in the courts. It there was proof of wrong doing, it would have surfaced. But it did not.

The only way Coleman is going to win is if he gets the judicary to declare him the winner as the supremes did in 2000 for George II.

Yeah, tell me about how serious you are about the electorial process. Where were you when the will of the people, the electors, in Florida was overriden by the Republican supremes?

So what?! We operate under the rule of law! When the laws are worthless then so is government.

Where was I when the Florida Supreme Court ruled as they did? I was 15 years old. Probably hanging out in my hometown and annoyed at the talk of "hanging chads" which I didn't fully understand. I guess I figured that judges esteemed enough to be in the Supreme Court could govern properly.


Ganymede, I will gladly respond to your requests when I have more time.

So what?! We operate under the rule of law! When the laws are worthless then so is government.

Where was I when the Florida Supreme Court ruled as they did? I was 15 years old. Probably hanging out in my hometown and annoyed at the talk of "hanging chads" which I didn't fully understand. I guess I figured that judges esteemed enough to be in the Supreme Court could govern properly.


Ganymede, I will gladly respond to your requests when I have more time.

I like the way you ignore facts not consistent with your beliefs...typical. I said the case has already been through a judical review. You think the Minnesota election was the only election? You think this is the only time this has happened? You think we don't have laws do deal with elections? No, this is normal stuff...nothing new. We have a process which has been followed. And Franken should be seated immediately as the Senator from Minnesota.

If the shoe were on the other foot and this happened to Coleman there would be tea parties in Minnesota every day of the week.

If you want to complain about elections, look at the history of your party. Watergate breake in....probably does not mean anything to you. It was when a sitting Republican president authorized breaking the law to spy on his political opposition.

Mr. liddy, one of the ring leaders moved on to become a leading Republican Talk Show host and a Republican Party mouth piece...yeah real good these Republicans are at obeying the law...NOT.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Other/A_Statement.pdf


4. DESCRIPTION OF CLAIMS, DEFENSES, ISSUES LITIGATED AND RESULT BELOW

On November 4, 2008, the general election held in the State of Minnesota included the election for the office of United States Senator. On the evening of the election, the vote tally showing 1,211,590 votes cast for Norm Coleman and 1,211,375 votes cast for Al Franken, an advantage of 215 votes for Coleman. On November 18, 2008, the Minnesota State Canvassing Board (MSCB) directed the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State to oversee an administrative manual recount of votes cast for the office of United States Senator pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, Subd. 1. On January 5, 2009, the MSCB certified the recount results: Coleman received 1,212,206 votes and Franken 1,212,431, a difference of 225 in favor of Franken and the closest Senate race in Minnesota's history.

The trial focused primarily on absentee ballots, including an equal protection claim based on the disparate treatment of similarly situated ballots and a due process claim based on the imposition of a standard different than that applied by officials during the election, but also addressed alleged double-counting of ballots in certain Minneapolis precincts during the recount and whether ballots that cannot be found in another Minneapolis precinct should be included in the final tally of legally cast votes.

During the seven-week long trial, Coleman presented evidence through election officials and individual voters that thousands of rejected absentee ballots had sufficient indicia of trustworthiness to substantially comply with the statutory standard (Minn. Stat. § 203B.12) and, consistent with the goal of Minnesota law and legal precedents to enfranchise voters, should be counted. He also presented evidence of substantial disparities among election officials in how they applied the statutory standard. Indeed, the testimony of numerous election officials demonstrated that whether an absentee ballot was accepted depended on where the voter lived. And the disparity in applying the standard affected not just a few ballots but thousands.

Midway through trial, the court adopted a strict compliance application of the statutory standard under Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.12 and 203B.24, which was different from, and more exacting than, that used on election day by the State's counties and cities for determining whether to accept an absentee ballot as a legally cast vote. Thereafter, the court made its view clear that any disparate treatment of ballots on election day was irrelevant. It thereafter refused to admit evidence of how local officials judged absentee ballots on election day, as well as evidence of absentee ballots cast on election day that failed to meet the court's strict compliance standard and therefore, were illegal votes. The court granted Franken's motion in limine to exclude Coleman's expert statistician as well. Coleman ultimately compiled this evidence in extensive written offers of proof.

The court also denied Coleman's motions seeking, as a matter of Minnesota law and to satisfy the equal protection and due process guarantees of the federal Constitution, to have the court apply one, uniform standard to all absentee ballots cast in the November 4, 2008 election. The court also denied Contestants' petitions (and motion) seeking an inspection of precincts in which double-counting allegedly occurred during the recount, despite the statutory provision for inspections under Minn. Stat. § 209.06.

After the close of the trial, the court ruled that only 351 of the approximately 11,000 previously rejected absentee ballots were in fact legally cast votes and should be added to the recount tallies. It also ruled that Coleman had failed to establish that double-counting of votes had occurred during the recount and that the decision of the MSCB to accept the election night tally from Minneapolis precinct 3-1 was entitled to deference and that tally should be included in the certified count. It then declared Franken had received the highest number of legally cast votes and was therefore entitled to receive the election certificate.


The court denied a motion to officially investigate allegations of double-counting in Minneapolis which is granted in the provision of Minn. Stat. § 209.06. The court then declares that Coleman failed to establish that double-counting of votes had occurred. Funny. Like I said, I don't care about who wins the Senate seat so long as we see an amendment of the Minnesota constitution to include uniform standards for elections that allow for due process, equal protection, and equal application of the law.

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Other/A_Statement.pdf



The court denied a motion to officially investigate allegations of double-counting in Minneapolis which is granted in the provision of Minn. Stat. § 209.06. The court then declares that Coleman failed to establish that double-counting of votes had occurred. Funny. Like I said, I don't care about who wins the Senate seat so long as we see an amendment of the Minnesota constitution to include uniform standards for elections that allow for due process, equal protection, and equal application of the law.

joepistole, go fuck yourself.

maybe because the court unlike you realized that the claims were bogus. Shit coleman as a strategy contested ballots willnilly in hopes of of someone finding something. Coleman lost fair and square deal with it.

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Other/A_Statement.pdf

The court denied a motion to officially investigate allegations of double-counting in Minneapolis which is granted in the provision of Minn. Stat. § 209.06. The court then declares that Coleman failed to establish that double-counting of votes had occurred. Funny. Like I said, I don't care about who wins the Senate seat so long as we see an amendment of the Minnesota constitution to include uniform standards for elections that allow for due process, equal protection, and equal application of the law.

joepistole, go fuck yourself.

Yeah right....for Republicans truth hurts, doen't it. :) Getting a little unnerved by a little truth are you? :)

We have a process for elections....all other states were able to conduct and election and elect Democrats. Why is Minnesota so unique? It isn't. As pjdued, it is not the resposnibiltiy of the court to prove the claims of the claimant. Just because you a Republican makes a claim does not mean it is true...in fact the odds would be against truth coming from a Republican.

These arguments are ridiculous. We have a process to deal with alleged wrongdoing whatever form it takes, and it's not a process that happens overnight. If your argument is that the process takes too long, then you really have a problem with the system.

Norm Coleman in my opinion is corrupt and very well could be dragging things out deliberately, as you attest, but that's his right and it is the judicial system's responsibility to find the truth. Let's have a more substantive discussion here.

These arguments are ridiculous. We have a process to deal with alleged wrongdoing whatever form it takes, and it's not a process that happens overnight. If your argument is that the process takes too long, then you really have a problem with the system.

Norm Coleman in my opinion is corrupt and very well could be dragging things out deliberately, as you attest, but that's his right and it is the judicial system's responsibility to find the truth. Let's have a more substantive discussion here.

No the question is not about coleman nor Franken, it is about representation for the people of Minnesota. It is also about honor. These things have been settled out of court in the past and with reason.

A tangental issue is political use of the judicary. The judicary should be above the political process...especially when you get to supremes. A judge, especially a supreme justice should avoid all potential conflicts of interst. And if a case comes before a judge who is conflicted, the judge should recuse him/herself from the case...unfortunately this does not happen very often

When the case is closed and the courts rule in Franken's favor, barring another contest, he should receive the certificate and take the Senate seat shortly thereafter.

If I recall correctly, the Minnesota Supreme Court had to hear the Franken v Coleman case. Although Coleman can appeal his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, they are not required to take the case. If I understand this situation correctly, in order to review the electoral processes instead of the election's outcome, a new case will have to be made by a group of people in Minnesota who argue that their votes in this election have been disenfranchised.

No the question is not about coleman nor Franken, it is about representation for the people of Minnesota. It is also about honor. These things have been settled out of court in the past and with reason.

A tangental issue is political use of the judicary. The judicary should be above the political process...especially when you get to supremes. A judge, especially a supreme justice should avoid all potential conflicts of interst. And if a case comes before a judge who is conflicted, the judge should recuse him/herself from the case...unfortunately this does not happen very often

Two judges recused themselves from this case because they were on the Minnesota State Canvassing Board that handled the administrative recount.

Two judges recused themselves from this case because they were on the Minnesota State Canvassing Board that handled the administrative recount.

I know and I think a few more should recuse themselves as well.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81828

I would like to bring this thread up again because I saw it coming, though even I in my pessimisms did not envision it being this bad! I just figured franken would lose, not that we would be stuck short a senator for months perhaps years because he could not close the deal!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81828

I would like to bring this thread up again because I saw it coming, though even I in my pessimisms did not envision it being this bad! I just figured franken would lose, not that we would be stuck short a senator for months perhaps years because he could not close the deal!

I don't know anything about Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. Even if their was no dirt on him Republicans could have pretended their was dirt much as they pretend Obama is a socialist. Republicans don't have to deal with reality they can make up reality as needed.

Are you sure Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer would have beet Coleman? At least Franken could make enough noise of his own so that the Republican noise against the democrat was not the only noise heard.

Franken did one thing right; he refused to leave the stage when the Republican snarled go home loser I won. Whimpy ass Democrats usually whimper off defeated at that point.

I don't know anything about Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. Even if their was no dirt on him Republicans could have pretended their was dirt much as they pretend Obama is a socialist. Republicans don't have to deal with reality they can make up reality as needed.

So? Didn't help them last election.


Are you sure Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer would have beet Coleman?

Let me introduce you to hindsight probabilities, for example we don't know if things would have been as fuck up or more so under Al Gore instead of George Bush, but we know now there was a 100% chance for fuck up under Bush (because it happened) with Gore all probabilities are less then 100% therefore from hindsight we know there is little chance Gore would have been as bad as Bush, this is without even counting the fact that Bush is mentally retarded and Gore won the Noble Prize.

Now based on hindsight probability Jack is unlikely to be been as bad as Franken, he could have lost, he could have won, but chances are he would not have ended us in a never ending purgatory of litigations that likely to make it to the supreme court were they will pull a "Bush wins" again with Colemen. The election would likely have been clean and respectable not the embarrassing cat fight that it was with franken and colemen clawing at each other and a 3rd party guy rightfully pointing out how assholeish these two were.



At least Franken could make enough noise of his own so that the Republican noise against the democrat was not the only noise heard.
We have learned a lot about republican noise lately: that it has lost most of it power to pursued people, only the dittoheads now listen. We have also learned that theri noises is counter productive when placed againts a good-two-shoe pretty boy, al Obama, aside for Sarah "Alaskan White Trash" Palin, the economy and bush approval, all the republican smearing actually hurt McCain the polls more then helped.



Franken did one thing right; he refused to leave the stage when the Republican snarled go home loser I won. Whimpy ass Democrats usually whimper off defeated at that point.
Staying didn't do Gore any good did it? The whole recount its self was embarrassing, close elections are a serious problem they lead to lawyer wet dream problems like our present situation, I'm not angry over franken staying in (out of personal greed for power I assure you) but that he could not close the deal to begin with!

Now based on hindsight probability Jack is unlikely to be been as bad as Franken, he could have lost, he could have won, but chances are he would not have ended us in a never ending purgatory of litigations He would have lost, and a few months of purgatory while the Republican Party extracts political advantage at the expense of the State and country is better than another six years of Senator Norm Coleman - who would be spending most of his time preparing a Presidential bid, along with Minnesota's current governor and probably its 6th District Congressman. Somebody's got to front for the Republican Party in four years.

The guy that should have run was Ciresi, and he probably would have beaten Coleman outright, but that was decided by outside money impressed with Franken's name recognition and national connections - the same crowd that stuck the Minnesota Dems with Ann Wynia and Patty Wetterling and the like. Franken at least didn't embarrass the Dems too badly. He might even make a decent Senator, actually.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81828

I would like to bring this thread up again because I saw it coming, though even I in my pessimisms did not envision it being this bad! I just figured franken would lose, not that we would be stuck short a senator for months perhaps years because he could not close the deal!I really think these kind of elections should be settled by an instant run-off rather than all these endless recounts and judicial shananigans. If the vote is too close to call, vote again.

I really think these kind of elections should be settled by an instant run-off rather than all these endless recounts and judicial shananigans. If the vote is too close to call, vote again.

I totally agree on instant run-off voting but i don't think you understand what it is, its not a system for fixing too close to call votes, its a new system all together, a far better system: all voting should be instant run off, it would end the two party system and would project the voters will with far better accuracy and detail.

I really think these kind of elections should be settled by an instant run-off rather than all these endless recounts and judicial shananigans. If the vote is too close to call, vote again. The recount was not "endless" - it ended in time to seat Franken at the normal beginning of Senate business in January, and involved no "judicial shenanigans" beyond the courtroom delaying tactics of the Republican Party. Even the one or two bad decisions favoring Franken were a result of Republican Party legal pressure.

It was a perfectly good recount, done well and solidly indicative.

This is the third recent major election in Minnesota in which a different mechanical system of voting would probably have altered the result, due to the skewing effect of third party candidates. Several fixes have been proposed. All such ideas - including "instant runoff" voting procedures in the initial election - have been fought by the Republicans in Minnesota. They might reduce the influence of money and Party on elections, for one thing.

He would have lost, and a few months of purgatory while the Republican Party extracts political advantage at the expense of the State and country is better than another six years of Senator Norm Coleman

You don't know that, I don't know that, God doesn't know that.



- who would be spending most of his time preparing a Presidential bid, along with Minnesota's current governor and probably its 6th District Congressman. Somebody's got to front for the Republican Party in four years.

Your nightmarish projections are even to scary for me to phantom. No fucking way Coleman would be anywhere close to president, and Bachman will eventually drown by staring into the rain with her mouth open.


The guy that should have run was Ciresi, and he probably would have beaten Coleman outright, but that was decided by outside money impressed with Franken's name recognition and national connections - the same crowd that stuck the Minnesota Dems with Ann Wynia and Patty Wetterling and the like. Franken at least didn't embarrass the Dems too badly. He might even make a decent Senator, actually.

ditto

and aside for being a power hungry fuck I don't doubt he would make a decent senator either.

I totally agree on instant run-off voting but i don't think you understand what it is, its not a system for fixing too close to call votes, its a new system all together, a far better system: all voting should be instant run off, it would end the two party system and would project the voters will with far better accuracy and detail.

You have a problem, it is called a Republic, and that is what we are, a democratic republic.

A one party state is inherently Fascist, and Dictatorial, and becomes rule by fiat of the masses, and subjugation of the minority.

You have a problem, it is called a Republic, and that is what we are, a democratic republic.

A one party state is inherently Fascist, and Dictatorial, and becomes rule by fiat of the masses, and subjugation of the minority.

I was suggesting a multi-party state not a one party state!

I was suggesting a multi-party state not a one party state!

And what is this?


I totally agree on instant run-off voting but i don't think you understand what it is, its not a system for fixing too close to call votes, its a new system all together, a far better system: all voting should be instant run off, it would end the two party system and would project the voters will with far better accuracy and detail.

If you end the two party system what do you have? a one party system, and that is a one party state.

Our country has never been a one party system, and that is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended, it keeps the power with the people, and that is the problem as of today, the Republican have of late tried to out Democrat the Democrats, that is where the problem lies, you can't tell most of the politicians apart, Demoblican, Republcrats, and spend, spend, spend.

The real answer is to vote them all out, and put some real people in, the people who have had to work for a living, and live under the laws passed by these Demoblican, Republcrats, and who believe in the Constitution and the Limits on the Power of the Federal Government as defined by The Constitution.

If you end the two party system what do you have? a one party system, and that is a one party state

The exclusivity of this outcome, Mr. Roam, is insupportable.

After decades of Republican Power and hearing Republicans lament about the Democrats and do everything legal and illegal to bring about a one part state now sing the virtues of a two party state....funny how things change.