We should probably add the word 'again' to every headline about the court dealing a blow to Coleman.

Good decision by the court and they are posturing it in a way to make it impervious to further legal challengs. As I thought all along, they gave Coleman all the time he wanted knowing that if the votes were still against him, he could not mount a successful appeal.

I wonder if, after this is decided and Coleman appeals to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the traditional media will finally begin calling Coleman a "sore loser" like they were falling all over themselves to call Gore while the recounting process was still ongoing?
Somehow I doubt it.

Norm sailed through the "sore loser" zone ages ago without even breaking a sweat. He's now breathing the rarefied air reserved for the "total asshole."

Good-bye, Norman Quimby. I'd like to say it's been fun...except that it hasn't.

I read the words "three-ring" above and had to look twice because I missed the word "circus."

Strib reports that about half of the ballots are from Franken territory - Hennepin, Ramsey and St. Louis counties.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/42221767.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU1yDEmP:QMDCinchO7DU

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!

Grammar nit only:

"previously-rejected" doesn't need a hyphen. Adverb-adjective pairs rarely do.

Hey!!!

Surely the LIZARD PEOPLE will get a vote or two out of this!!!!!

During the recount challenge phase, the Coleman team focused on reducing Franken votes from the 'rejected absentee' pile. The Franken team focused on increasing Franken ballots. Al's strategy won out.

A few comments from the legal peanut gallery:
1) The court's statement - that the parties' summary spreadsheets offered for closing were not sufficiently complete and reliable, so they reviewed all the evidence - is intentionally ambiguous to provide cover and eliminate one more possible appeal issue for Coleman. In reality the court may have completely rejected Coleman's spreadsheets because they included inappropriate presumptions; and may have accepted Franken's spreadsheet or 95% of it, and used it as a checklist to review all the evidence.
2) Unless I missed arguments made by Coleman's team, they never provided sufficient legal argument to support their position of lenience in evaluating absentee ballots. I read the court's decision to be saying that they are pretty pissed at Coleman's approach to the litigation, and when I read between the lines, they are saying his arguments, and therefore his presentation of evidence based on those arguments, were bordering on frivolous. That would open Coleman to sanctions.
3) Footnote 37 on page 12 is very interesting, maybe. Here's what happens in trial:
1) A party has a piece of evidence marked with a number.
2) The item is identified, either by the attorney or a witness.
3) There may or may not be additional evidence or testimony about that piece of evidence.
4) The party OFFERS the evidence for submission. 5) The court makes a ruling, either admitting, rejecting or reserving on that piece of evidence.

According to the footnote, one of two things happened: either Coleman's team got through step 3, and then concluded that there was not sufficient basis to formally offer the evidence, so they moved on, OR they got through step 3 and just plain forgot to utter the magic words, "Evidence #___ is offered." If a party doesn't offer the evidence then the judges won't rule on its admissibility. If the case closes without that evidence being offered, then it will not be considered and has no legal bearing on the case, or on appeal. S.O.L. Classic boneheaded, bad lawyering. Happens all the time. Sounds to me like Coleman's team may have committed gross error. Again, S.O.L. This is not valid grounds for appeal.
4) Coleman has an upcoming intermediary opportunity to demonstrate further dickishness. Some of those 400 absentee ballots are going to be opened, and there may be at least one "lizard people" ballot that is questionable. Technically, Coleman may have the right to contest the decision made in open court whether to accept or reject such a ballot. Anyone want to bet whether he asks for a separate hearing, with a new panel, to rule on these new problems? My guess is the court would deny any such request, call it immaterial to the overall tally, and tell Coleman he can include that issue in any appeal.
5) Of interest to only us legal geeks is the percentage of the 400 considered that were part of Franken's spreadsheet vs. Coleman's. I'm betting that most of the 400 ballots to be considered were requested by Franken, by a longshot.
6) More a question that a comment: Are these 400 the entire remaining universe, or were there some ballots ruled upon during the trial, that were determined to be eligible for counting, either by court rule or stipulation, in addition to these 400?

Well, you're an optimist! I hope you're right. This is the same Senate seat that remained open for 22 months after the 1924 election. That was when Norm's Republican antecedent, "Shyster Tom" Schall beat Magnus Johnson, one of the first Farmer-Labor party Senators.

Magnus complained that Schall had engaged in corrupt campaign practices--shaking down Mpls bootleggers for contributions, in exchange for which he was going to guarantee them protection from Federal raids. The Senate investigated (that was when Article I Section 5 of the Constitution was still in force; it has mysteriously vanished since then.)

Schall's campaign manager took the fall, and, it is said, ended up in federal prison. So Schall was finally seated. Then in his first floor speech, Schall used such vituperative and unprintable language to denounce his political opponents, that portions of the speech were stricken from the Record. Republicans---what a crew.

Whether or not Franken gets more votes is irrelevant. Coleman (Reublican Party) is winning because he is able to drag this out endlessly while critical issues are being debated in the Senate. Wake me when it's over (I said that four months ago, and I'll probably be back to sleep for another four months before the next court ruling gets handed down and a new appeal process begins.)

Ugh!

Minnesotans need to instead march in the streets and just demand a new election.

A new election, Camco? Do you have any idea of the expense of that to Minnesota taxpayers? What a waste of money! Where are the conservatives crying out for "tort reform" in the face of Coleman's frivolous, self-serving behavior? I think that Minnesotans need to take to the streets and demand the seating of Sen. Franken, who won this extremely close election fair and square!

I like this court ruling. It did the heavy-lifting for the higher courts, for whom the easy route now is "Yeah, what they said."

I'll bet that Harry Reid doesn't actually want Al Franken in the Senate. Franken will be much more pressure from the left (high-visibility, articulate, potentially-devastating pressure) and fewer excuses. Reid has every reason to hope Franken doesn't get seated.

I think the folks in MN need to take to the streets and march on Coleman's offices or house. Harass the prick nonstop until he bows out. This is a travesty of democracy and pure manipulation. Rights were never "given" to the people, they were taken.