Cornyn: Minnesota Senate Seat Could Take "Years" To Resolve
The Minnesota election dispute has now lasted for almost five months, with the seat vacant for the last three of them -- but that might just be the beginning, with NRSC chairman John Cornyn telling the Politico that it could take "years" to resolve.
Cornyn, of course, is promising Republican resistance to any potential effort to seat Al Franken while Norm Coleman continues to challenge the result. And Cornyn is clear that this means Franken can't be certified the winner if Coleman takes it to the federal courts, not just at the state level. But Cornyn seems to be going into new territory when he says it could take "years" to fix this thing.
TPM asked DSCC communications director Eric Schultz for comment. "Republicans have made it clear they will hold this Senate seat hostage in order to pursue their political agenda - at the hefty expense of Minnesota having full representation in Congress," said Schultz. "We're all awaiting the three-judge panel to return its verdict, and once they do, we will have yet another confirmation that Al Franken won the election - and hopefully he can get to Washington to do the job he was elected to do."




















Since Minnesotan's are probably too polite to say so (that Midwestern thing), I'll take a shot...
Cornyn is a piece of shit.
March 30, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
But a really, really, really dumb piece of shit, so I wouldn't take anything he says too seriously.
March 30, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a lifelong Midwesterner, and I'll go you one better. Cornyn (who, BTW, is responsible for this little gem:
...is a great, steaming pile of shit.
March 30, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You my friend, do a great disservice to a steaming pile of shit!
March 30, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Minnesota Supreme Court orders the issuance of the certificate, Franken will be seated, no matter what Cornyn says.
March 30, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
A federal court could enjoin the issuance of the certificate if/when Coleman bring his collateral federal lawsuit.
I'm not saying it would, but it could.
March 30, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt they would, but more importantly, they (and Coleman) would have to work fast. Once the certificate is issued, it can't be un-issued. I'd expect the MN-SC to direct the issuance in their decision, so unless Pawlenty drags his feet, Franken could have his certificate within a few days of the MN-SC decision.
March 30, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Pawlenty will drag his feet, if he knows Coleman intends to file for a TRO. He knows to play ball with the national GOP, who are conducting the "Coleman" litigation train.
March 30, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The chances that Coleman actually obtains a TRO on the basis of his weak-ass claim are virtually nil. He hasn't got a prayer of passing the "substantial likelihood of success on the merits" prong. So the time frame on Franken getting seated is essentially however long it takes him to get mandamus in the Minnesota courts, which will most certainly not be "years."
March 30, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not certain whether the MNSCT would direct issuance of the certificate. If I clerked for them, I'd probably draft the order to only the specific matter before the Court, which means denying the appeal and no more. In theory, the Governor could then refuse to sign the certificate and force Franken to bring a mandamus action.
To me, this all demonstrates why Senate Rule II shouldn't be interpreted as imposing fixed requirements for the form of a senator's credentials.
March 30, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
We'll see. I think the MN-SC is smart enough to know that Pawlenty won't do it until he's ordered to do so. Why give him the opening and force Franken to file the mandamus motion that everyone knows will come? I think they're cognizant of the fact that this has been deliberately dragged out and will try to speed it along, consistent with the MN law.
March 30, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might be consistent with the law, but not consistent with long standing judicial practice, to grant relief not requested by a party. Mandamus is only appropriate when someone first refuses to act in accordance with the law. The issue wouldn't be ripe if Pawlenty hadn't yet had an opportunity to comply.
The MN S. Ct. is smart, but also not looking for ways to delegitimize themselves by opening themselves to charges of "activism."
March 30, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your approach is certainly the more pragmatic one, and I hope that is how the MNSC sees it too. If I served the Court though I think I would advise against addressing any matter not properly before them. The issue of whether the Governor should be compelled to issue a certificate isn't properly before them until the Governor has refused to do so. I wouldn't feel particularly compelled by the argument that MN may be deprived of a senator because it isn't the court that is causing any such deprivation; the Senate can seat Franken any time it wishes.
March 30, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd expect that Franken, in his response to the appeal, would ask the court to direct the issuance of the certificate, so the matter will be before them. It's just a question of how conservatively they want to play it.
If the court does not direct the issuance, I think Franken's lawyers are smart enough to have a mandamus action all typed up and ready to go on a moment's notice if Pawlenty refuses to sign. They know there's a risk of a federal court injunction so they'll want to move as quickly as they can. In either case, I don't think this will last more than a week after the MN-SC rejects the appeal.
March 30, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are likely correct about the relief that Franken will request, but I still wouldn't see the issue as properly before the Court until after the Governor has failed to act.
As mentioned, I hope the Court sees it your way. Their order last December on the absentee ballots suggests a proclivity toward Solomonic solutions, so maybe they will choose pragmatism over legal nuance.
March 30, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was it that the Illinois court ruled about seating Burris? The Secretary of State was not going to sign the certification, but the court ruling somehow jujitsued past that.
Seems to me the Court could do so here.
As an anthropologist and a law student, I once wrote a paper about cross-cultural judicial decision-making, and the conclusion was that western judges as well as "aboriginal" ones make a decision FIRST, and then find the legal justification by "parsing" words in either statutes or "precidential" prior judicial opinions. As we say in the world of legal briefs, see Bush v. Gore.
Essentially the ONLY question is, what do the majority of the MN Supreme Court want to DO? If they want to Seat Franken, they'll find a way around Pawlenty's muddy feet.
If they're ambivalent, they'll just find on the facts and allow further delays and wait for a writ of Mandamus to go through the process.
If they want Coleman to be seated, they'll rule in his favor.
It is fun to argue the legal principles, and that's what law school and appellate practice are all about. But don't fool yourself that this will be decided by the "law."
March 30, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State was not required to sign because his signature was unnecessary under Illinois law. The Secretary of State never signed the actual certificate of election. He (or his office) signed a separate document certifying that he was providing a true and accurrate copy of the unsigned certificate of election.
I generally agree with your assessment of judicial decisions. In my personal experience, if you want to convince a judge you must first use the facts to tell a story that makes the judge want to rule in your favor. After that you provide the law that allows him or her to do so. Relying solely on a legal argument, no matter how strong, is a recipe for defeat.
March 31, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate, according to its own rules - which, by the way, require a very unlikely 2/3 supermajority vote to change - requires a certificate of election. So the Senate can not "...seat Franken (or anyone else, for that matter, who does not hold said certificate) any time it wishes."
It can seat anyone holding a certificate of election any time it wishes.
March 30, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not correct. Senate Rule II does not explicitly specify what credentials senators are required to present. It provides only a recommended form. The argument for requiring a certificate is that it's implied by the Secretary's obligation to record certain information normally on the certificate. That implication isn't necessary, however, and the Senate has departed from it in the past. Most recently, the Senate did so when it seated Roland Burris without a certificate signed by the Illinois Secretary of State.
March 30, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will Pawlenty drag his feet? Well, it CAN get muddy in Minnesota in the Spring.
You betcha.
March 30, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes sense: Harry Reid consistently backs down from fights, and the Republican base will eagerly support a Franken filibuster. I see no reason for the Republicans to compromise on this one iota.
Hopefully, they won't be able to hold the less radical members of their caucus (Snowe, Collins, Specter, etc.) once Franken has his certificate. No reason for them not to continue fighting tooth and nail though.
The Democrats desparately need stronger leadership in the Senate.
March 30, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reid ain't our huckleberry when it comes to strong leadership...
March 30, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
March 30, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid would prefer Coleman. Coleman is a member of The Club. Franken is not and never will be. He's too honest. That's the last kind of person Harry Reid wants in the senate.
March 30, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue here is that the GOp can always hide behind the law - "We're just letting the American legal process run it's course. The Democrats want to circumvent the process because it is politically expedient. Shame on them!" Also if Dems raise a stink about Minnesotans not having two senators and thus not proper representation, the GOP will counter with "Why not let Gov Pawlenty name a place holder?"
Of course Reid and Co should really launch an offensive, highlight all of the contributors to Coleman's defense and point out how political they are.
Dems really have to fight to seat Franken, there will be no political fallout from doing so. However you have to bet the GOP and their obstructionist bent would gladly grind the Obama Administration to a halt to stop his agenda.
March 30, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not in front of them yet.
March 30, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest a compromise: in order to make things "even", let's have Texas give up a seat too.
March 30, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Franken is declared the winner by the Minnesota courts and when Tim Pawlenty is forced to issue an election certificate, (and let's face it, he will have to be forced to), then Franken gets seated no matter how the repugs feel about it. Or he would be but I just don't have that much confidence in Reid ever finding the balls to stand up to Cornyn and the smallest Republican minority in decades.
March 30, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest a compromise: in order to make things "even", let's have Texas give up a seat too.
Yeah, Cornyn's. So many of us tried so hard to get that asshat out.
March 30, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had to attend a recent fundraiser for a GOP Senator. He said Coleman has spent a total of $26 million on the race/court effort and doesn't plan on taking it to the US Supreme Court.
March 30, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman hasn't spent poop. The RNC and his campaign committees are another matter, and they will fight it simply for obstructionist purposes.
March 30, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
For years? Why isn't this bigger news? Where is the outrage from the people of that state?
March 30, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was born in Texas and have lived in Minnesota since 1983. We are not outraged because we don't get bent out of shape every time an idiot spouts off.
To my good buddy Dorn76, Cornyn is a great big steaming pile of shit. There, I wasn't too polite to say it. Of course, since I was born in Texas, that may disqualify me from being a real Minnesotan in spite of freezing my ass off up here for the past 26 years.
March 30, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
democracy inaction
March 30, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're polite here in Wisconsin, so I'll just say Cornyn is a giant, steaming cheese log.
March 30, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a Minnesotan and I am outraged! If you ask any typical Minnesotan, they too are outraged and are sick and tired of this farce. Opinion runs about 95% against Norm Coleman and would like him to concede, even many of his supporters. There is a problem when few of the local media sources do not follow the national GOP threats. I am in the process of contacting our Gov to protest this farce. I'm also thinking of organinizing a protest in front of the State Capitol. Anyone out there ready and willing to join me????
Impatiently waiting for Sen Al!
March 30, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is another impolite Minnesotan who agrees that after the 3 judge panel issues their ruling, we need a demo at the state capitol and maybe on Coleman's front lawn.
March 30, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pick a date and time. You'll have plenty of company. I guarantee I'll be there.
March 30, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was born in Texas and still live here and I'll say that Cornyn is a big, steaming pile of shit and nobody I know likes him or voted for him.
I've been wondering how Minnesota voters feel about all of this. I can only imagine the outrage if Pawlenty has to be forced to issue an election certificate after the state appeals have played out.
Also, I'm not an attorney but I don't see how a federal court has jurisdiction in this case because it doesn't involve voter fraud or massive irregularities. Again, not a lawyer but isn't a statewide election the jurisdiction of state courts?
And since when do Republicans surrender states' rights and run whining to the federal courts? (Rhetorical question) The answer is everytime they don't get their way at the state level.
March 30, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious. Does Texas use electronic voting machines?
- FTF
March 30, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but I haven't seen one of those touch screen thingies yet. These are older technology and feature a dial. Dunno how accurate they are because we get no paper trail here. I'm happy the GOP is on it's way out here but it can't happen soon enough.
March 30, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, but they do use the electric chair.
March 30, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Bush v. Gore
March 30, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm willing to show up in front of normie's house too.
Any lawyers out there who could direct us not so nice Minnesotans on how to file a suit against the GOP and norm for taxation without representation or something like that?
I'm serious. We need to make our voices heard!
March 30, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Cornyn runs his war on Minnesota like he does the RSCC, Big John will be surrendering his sword about a hour after it starts.
Did anyone above mention that he and Norm are pieces of shit?
March 30, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another week, another lost week in the Senate for the state of MN. Still NO public coverage of this from the MSM.
And the weak, weak response from the DSCC "communications director" shows the startling lack of ability the Dems have to break through the GOP wall of noise and official right-wing news agencies.
March 30, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The course of the election challenge really depends on where Norm expects to go after he is done losing this election. If he intends to settle into a little sinecure on the wingnut welfare circuit or in a lobbying shop then I would expect him to draw this thing out as long as he can.
On the other hand, if Norm hopes to run for governor again in 2010 I think the Minnesota electorate would take dim view of him taking this case beyond the MNSC.
On the other other hand, Norm’s other legal problems, i.e.: alleged payments from Kazeminy to his wife for a do-nothing job, aren’t going away. If that’s the case, that puts a damper on the gubernatorial aspirations, which takes us back to drawing out the election contest. Maybe for Norm the end of the rainbow is he throws in the towel on the election contest and converts the remaining contributions into a legal defense fund.
March 30, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Normie could not be elected dog catcher in this state right now. I do have some hope that with this recent confirmation of the alleged payments from Kazeminy will put the kibosh on his persuing this senate seat any further but then I think, this is norm coleman and he'll do anything the GOP instructs him to. If the GOP has it their way normie will be contesting this from a federal pen.
March 30, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's lookin' kinda like a Minnesota version of B-Rod even.
March 30, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that Coleman will do what the GOP tells him to do. After all, how else is he going to afford expenses for his various court cases?
March 30, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a portent of things to come. As the GOP becomes less and less viable in states like Minnesota, it will become more and more obstructionist in support of what remains of its national clout. Democrats need to see this in that broader context. Finding a solution here will save a lot of grief later. On the other hand, Harry's usual spineless performance will guarantee that there will be dozens of such challenges in the next election cycle.
March 30, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cornyn is a Republican doing what Republicans do, all out warfare.
Most of the news I see about this election is about Coleman or the Republicans, there's a dearth of news concerning Franken or the Democrats.
March 30, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Private citizen Coleman will be getting legal defense donations from all of the GOP money men as long as he does exactly what he is told to stretch out seating Franken as long as possible.
I think the key will be to put heavy political pressure on Pawlenty. He's up for re-election in 2010, should he decide to run again.
March 30, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me Pawlenty might have a problem being re-elected if he is seen as obstructing Franken's seating. If he still refuses to issue an election certificate after the state process has played out, that might be further than Minnesota voters are willing to go.
March 30, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, that is why I think Pawlenty will sign the certificate. His career will be threatened by angry Minnesota voters should he become an obstructionist.
March 30, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pawlenty might make a valiant attempt to spin this in Coleman's favor, but it'll earn him a cold slap in the face with public sentiment strongly against dragging this out any further. He wants to either run for president or for re-election, and his chances of winning either are on a steep decline over the time it takes him to sign the certificate.
March 30, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should the Republicans succeed in keeping Minnesota a one senator state, the blow back in Minnesota would be awesome to behold.
March 30, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh, I know I'll get shouted down for saying this by someone or other, but what the HELL is wrong with Minnesota's state laws that they allow a never-ending recount process like this?
its understandable to do a recount when things are close. but that's done, Franken won, and he should be seated immediately! if a court finding genuinely invalidates the victory, then he should be replaced. but its quite obvious that Coleman & Co. have nothing that will accomplish this, and they are just directly harming their state and their country at this point.
what is wrong with the laws in MN? can nobody do anything about this?
March 30, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is this thing called a constitutional provision against ex post facto (after the fact) legislation. Changing the MN election laws may preclude this happening again. It will do nothing to expedite this matter.
March 30, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to criminal penalties. Minnesota can retroactively amend it's election laws any time it wants.
March 30, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have no idea what you are talking about. The recount is over. This is not a recount. It is an election contest, a procedure that is specifically allowed for by the statutes of the state. It is there because the legislature decided that it would be a good idea to have a procedure by which one could challenge the outcome of an election and correct any problems.
If there is a problem with the process, it is that it delays the decision to long, and I suspect the law might be changed in that regard. But I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with having this type of a law on the books. If there were no such law, btw, the right to challenge a election would likely still be there, it just wouldn't be controlled by statute and would likely be messy.
March 30, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem lies in automatically staying the certificate of election whenever there is an election contest. I think there's a reason that the state legislators exempted themselves from the automatic stay.
March 30, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious about this, but when Franken is sworn in as Senator, does he get paid from what would have been the beginning of his term or from the date he is installed? He obviously won't be allowed to serve a full six year term, although I think that would be fair, given the circumstances, so the least they can do is give him retroactive pay.
BTW. as a non-legal type, it is great fun for me to read the many comments in these threads, as everyone has interesting takes on the situation. Thanks for giving me more insight into the games being played by the legal teams.
March 30, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forget where I read it, but apparently his pay will not be retroactive but rather will be calculated at a daily rate, i.e., $xxx per day.
March 30, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pawlenty is not a rising star anymore in the rather sparsely populated GOP galaxy. His current budget plan for the huge deficit in Minnesota is its own black hole. As he dims in the firmament, and as Coleman's orbit decays, Minnesota may become bluer than blue, with Franken rightfully taking his seat. Pawlenty will not be able delay the certificate. He has too many problems dealing with the budget and his own standing in the state. There is only so much political capital to spend in Minnesota. Rep. Bachmann has blown any chance of being taken seriously. Rep. Kline is disliked for not helping fund worthwhile projects due to his phony stance on "earmarks." So the only direction the GOP is going in Minnesota is down the drain.
March 30, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking he's got a little revenge getting REAL cold re getting passed over for La Saran. (You know, that was a typo, but it somehow seems to be a Freudian Typo - Saran indeed.)
March 30, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that all midwestern states are turning blue and it seems that some in those states' GOP members are "moderating". Keep in mind that these days a "moderate" Republican is way to the right of Reagan but it's good that some at least are seeing the writing on the wall. Maybe Pawlenty will take Specter's fate to heart: When you roll over for the GOP, it just makes it that much easier for them to disembowel you.
March 30, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hobbes called what Norm is doing "disorder costs." O tempora, o mores.
March 30, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once the tribunal has ruled and any state appeals that may be taken are taken (and I am not sure this any meaningful appeals route in Minnesota after the decision is issued), then any federal court action will be decidedly more narrow and limited, and will not take "years" as Cornyn suggests.
March 30, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poorlenty and norm are nothing but good little soldiers for the GOP, as long as the GOP requests and demands obstruction they will do their part. Poorlenty has been smacked by the GOP several times, he was not able to run for senate due to Cheney's request and promise that he would be a Vp candidate and then by-passed for Palin. He is holding the hard GOP line by calling for a drastic cut in the MN budget by cutting health care, social programs and education. He will not raise taxes on his wealthy friends. This man has not moderated and will not. He will go down with the Titanic as will Norm.
I would be interested in filling a suit that my right has been denied to be fully represented in the Senate. Should anyone know how who I could contact, I would appreciate it. I now have a lot of time on my hands as I am recently un-employed and can devote time needed to push this goal. Thank you Gov Poorlenty!
March 30, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, Pawlenty seems to be feeling some heat. That's right Timmeh. Please sink your political career by trying to deny Franken the seat he was legally and properly elected to.
March 30, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franken won the election and won the ensuing law suit and should be seated while further appeals are worked through. It is unfair for MN to be denied its Senator due to political grandstanding.
Hopefully citizens will demand he be seated in spite of Coleman's obstructive tactics. Appeals should not prevent Franken from being seated especially since it can easily be seen that the GOP is playing delay games just to obstruct MN being represented by a dem.
March 30, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cornyn proves yet again what any thinking person in this country already knows: the GOP cares about no one and nothing...well, nothing but the GOP. "Damn the people of Minnesota, who gives a fig about them? Who do they think they are anyway, voting citizens? Ol' Norm deserves a 4th, 5th, and 6th chance!" says Cornyn and the GOP.
March 30, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
All Republicans are scum. That is all.
March 30, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someday it will be written...."In their last days, as a rapidly deteriorating party, the GOP seemed to be driving their own nails into their own coffin"
March 30, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would wager that Frannken will be seated as soon as there is a ruling on this case per court order, which will be held up on appeal in either state or federal court pending any further legal proceedings.
March 30, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When do the people in Minnesota get out the pitchforks and torches to go after the people who are depriving them of their rightful representation in Congress? I thought there was a more egalitarian spirit in Minnesota than that. Texans like Cornyn (and his toadies like Pawlenty) are counting on Minnesotans being wussies.
March 30, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is the Feds will stay out of it. There is no precedent for them to get involved, and Kennedy is already embarrassed and tainted by Bush v. Gore, since he's the swing vote, I don't think he'll want to get involved.
March 30, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect what Cornyn and Texas are mad about was that obscure bit of legislation called the Great Lakes Compact, that was affirmed by the Senate at the tail end of the last Congress. In essence it is a Treaty, as Canada and Ontario are party to it -- but what it does, after perhaps 25 years of negotiation, is prevent the export of any water from the Water Rich Great Lake region, to the thirsty Texans, who have long had their eyes on building some sort of canal or pipeline for that purpose. No one ran a big campaign about it, but the successful completion of the Compact pretty much ended the dreams of Texas to steal our water. You see -- we think ahead, and protect our interests and assets.
Beginning in the Reagan Era we began to get a set of Political Texans who moved into Minnesota Politics -- some of them like Coleman, already here, but willing to root their political futures in the interests of the Koch Brothers (that is the real power behind Coleman, Kazeminy is chump change) and the real interest was all our fresh clean water. The Compact which involves all the Great Lakes States plus Canada, was the response, and Cornyn and company were defeated.
March 30, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Cornyn have some activist judges lined up who are willing to throw another election?
March 30, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is worth mentioning that the Republicans hate and fear Franken more than President Obama or any other national political figure.
Republicans have been packing the courts at both state and federal levels for decades, and now they are depending on THEIR activist judges to keep Al Franken from taking his Senate seat.
It is too soon to assume that the 3-judge panel will rule in Al's favor. What judges do in election-law cases is entirely unpredictable.
I agree with everything said here about the failure of the Democrats to put forth a coherent and persuasive message about this contest.
And even though Pawlenty has no political love for former Senator Coleman, the Governor would only undercut his own political base if he does not keep the obstruction going. So I do not expect him to sign a certificate. His signature would legitimize Al's election, and the Thugs do not ever want to recognize it. Oh, if only the Democrats had taken the same attitude towards G. W. Bush---who, after all, did LOSE the election to Al Gore.
March 30, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've before that Rethugs fear Franken, but I've not heard an explanation as to why.
March 31, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
so... Is anyone actually surprised that this is the strategy?
Hasn't it been pretty obvious for a long time?
March 30, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pawlenty cannot afford the hit if Minnesotans see he is blocking our representation in the Senate. He does want to have a political future. It is too late for him to move to Texas and start over.
March 30, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink