Sen Al Franken Wins Again!

[FOTD]

3 judge panel declares Franken winner


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21211.html

"The case heads next to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and a decision there likely won't come until the end of May at the earliest. At that point, the loser has a choice — seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court or wage a new battle in federal district court. "

Go ahead. Put it to SCOTUS. In 2001, those politicos stopped the recount in Florida making Bush the worst President ever. Now, they'd do just the opposite ruling and overturn the electorate?

The devil thinks Al's election will really upset those still fighting the cultural war.

[FOTD]

[cannon_fodder]

For the 1,000,000th time.   The Supreme Court ruling was:

"You have to follow the rules you set up before the election.  You can not change them in the middle of a recount.  You definitely can not change them repeatedly in the middle of a recount." 

If it was appealed to them on the same issue, they would have the same ruling.  Unless Haliburton and the Queen paid them off again. 

And congrats to Stewart Smiley.

[Gaspar]

I think this is going to be marvelous. 

Thank God it was not Oklahoma.

[Cats Cats Cats]

The best part is the lawsuit that got the other votes counted added 350 to Franken's lead.

[Conan71]

Franken is a political parody.  But then again, these are the same folks who elected a pot smoking former pro-wrestler governor.

[nathanm]

For the 1,000,000th time.   The Supreme Court ruling was:

"You have to follow the rules you set up before the election.  You can not change them in the middle of a recount.  You definitely can not change them repeatedly in the middle of a recount." 

Sort of. Had it not been for the stay, the votes could have been recounted in several counties without having to go past the "deadline" that wasn't really a deadline under Florida law, but whatever. You have to admit it was pretty silly for them to bar the counties from continuing to recount while the case was being decided, especially when the end result was "you can recount if you get it done by the deadline, which ohbytheway is in a day." It was essentially a run out the clock strategy.

It also strikes me that the Florida Supreme Court would know better than the feds what their law is. In so many other areas of law, the Supreme Court declines to get involved in disputes about what a state's constitution says or means unless there's some conflict with the federal Constitution or federal law. Even then they usually don't get involved.

But whatever, there's not much sense in beating this dead horse.

[FOTD]

you mean, beating the Bush...

[cannon_fodder]

I'm not going to revisit that entire decision, but I have previously reviewed it and recall it as I indicated.  There had already been several recounts.  There had been several changes on what ballots count, when, why and under what circumstances and it was being changed by county, by the board of elections, and by the various courts at each challenge.  The Supreme Court merely said STOP.  Count under the initial rules that were setup and go with whatever result that is.

There was no indication that anything int he Court's ruling was slanted towards one person or the other.

And what's even more fun, a follow up study years later revealed that Bush STILL would have won if the process had been done under any of the potential counting schemes set up.  Subsequently methods of recounting have been found that would have given Gore a victory, but none of those methods was ever requested of the State or ordered by the Courts.  A strange turn of events - but another case of people desperately wanting there to be a conspiracy.

[nathanm]

And what's even more fun, a follow up study years later revealed that Bush STILL would have won if the process had been done under any of the potential counting schemes set up. 

That is what the AP reported, but something like 5 of the 9 recount methods they tested would have gone to Gore. I forget the particulars..I'd have to look it up.

[FOTD]

And what's even more fun, a follow up study years later revealed that Bush STILL would have won if the process had been done under any of the potential counting schemes set up.  Subsequently methods of recounting have been found that would have given Gore a victory, but none of those methods was ever requested of the State or ordered by the Courts.  A strange turn of events - but another case of people desperately wanting there to be a conspiracy.

Not a conspiracy! More like a crime.

Al Gore would have won after the recount. That has been proven. The SCOTUS showed their true colors by stopping the count thus making their favorite candidate the winner. Not all the justices sided with the majority. But the voters in Florida got their votes rejected. And our country got an idiot in the White House that put the US in todays predicament.

The justice department was ransacked by idiots from the top down. That's not a conspiracy. It's injustice..

[cannon_fodder]

FOTD,

1) Please find me a reputable source that says Gore would have won the recount using the methods requested in the suit.  There are recount methods under which Gore would have barely won (as Bush barely won), but they were not requested by Gore and thus would not have been granted.  The point is moot.

2) Please read the Bush v. Gore 2000 case and come back with an argument attacking the logic of the court.


I don't mean to destroy your theories.  But sometimes it gets really, really old.

[FOTD]

You just don't get it here CF.

No matter how you want to spin events, the election was decided by the SCOTUS

Here's a cute skit on one of those fine justices (long dong silver?)

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224612/april-14-2009/clarence-thomas--new-job

"One of the nine finest judicial minds in the country....."

In addition:Norm Loserman? Media lets Coleman, unlike Gore, avoid "sore loser" tag

http://minnesotaindependent.com/30635/norm-loserman

"When the press won't call Norm Coleman a sore loser for prolonging Minnesota's Senate dispute, it's not just a matter of sticks and stones, Eric Boehlert argues at Media Matters. It's prolonging the state's political agony by relieving pressure on Coleman and setting a partisan double standard to boot. Al Gore got tagged as a "sore loser" — a not-so-temporary tattoo that not even a Nobel Peace Prize can erase – within the relatively short span of five weeks. Coleman has avoided it while extending a dispute that's already taken almost four times as long."

Many Republican senators have been totally upfront about imploring Coleman to stall as long as possible to make vote-getting more difficult for the majority. If the situation were reversed, we'd hear a lot more about Democrats preventing Minnesotans from full representation in clear violation of the Constitution, as well as their blocking the Republican agenda in a time of serious fiscal crisis.This is really about the 59th democratic vote in the Senate. Supposidly, the Minnesota Supreme Court has final say in the matter.

[cannon_fodder]

Ok, you're right.  I don't get it.  Explain it to me.

From what I understand, EVEN IF the Court had not stepped in Gore still would have lost.

From what I understand, the Court's ruling was on sound logic.  If you think this is an example of judicial flaws in logic you clearly haven't read the amount of case law I assumed you had.  Operate under the rules at the start of the game was the essential merits of the ruling.  How shocking.

So other than the fact that there ruling was legally correct and that your perspective still would have lost even if they had not intervened, you're dead right.  Which is to say, you are not.

I get it, you're pissed that a Democrat lost 9 years ago and have to find someone to blame.  You know what?  Screw it.  You're absoultely right.   The Supreme Court hates Al Gore and Florida and the 4 years worth of Bush Sr. Appointments muscled over the 8 years of Clinton supporters and then rigged election polls in 2004 to reelected Bush because the Supreme Court can't already just do whatever the hell it wants and needed a politician on their side.  In fact, it was probably done so that they could have GW blow up the WTC.  That's it!

The Supreme Court rigged the 2000 Florida election in order to blow up the World Trade Center so they could profit.

Makes sense to me. 

[FOTD]

Ok, you're right.  I don't get it.  Explain it to me.

From what I understand, EVEN IF the Court had not stepped in Gore still would have lost.



 The Supreme Court hates Al Gore and Florida and the 4 years worth of Bush Sr. Appointments muscled over the 8 years of Clinton supporters and then rigged election polls in 2004 to reelected Bush because the Supreme Court can't already just do whatever the hell it wants and needed a politician on their side.  In fact, it was probably done so that they could have GW blow up the WTC. 

The Supreme Court rigged the 2000 Florida election in order to blow up the World Trade Center so they could profit.

Makes sense to me. 

You've made it clear why engaging you in discussion is pointless.