GOP On Coleman's Court Defeat: Silence
NBC News points out an interesting thing about the aftermath of Al Franken's win yesterday in the Minnesota election court: Other than the Coleman campaign itself, the Republicans don't seem to be saying anything about it.
The national Dems have been quick to call for Coleman to concede the race, rather than appeal and keep Franken's win bottled up in court. But there hasn't been anything from the RNC or the NRSC. And the Minnesota GOP, which has staunchly advocated for Coleman throughout this whole ordeal, hasn't updated their Web site with any new statement.
Indeed, I've personally asked the NRSC for comment, and haven't gotten anything.
The only Republican statement that has come out was from the Coleman campaign itself, vowing to appeal the decision -- and even here, it was a press release from Coleman's legal adviser Ben Ginsberg, not Norm himself.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Interesting. Do you suppose there's any hope of their giving it up? Maybe they're just going to hang on for 10 more days before they announce? It couldn't be that easy.
So what, exactly, is the monetary award on this case and how is that going to play out? Do you suppose that has anything to do with anything?
April 14, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there is any hope they will just give it up, based on what Ginsburg said yesterday. I think they are waiting for Rush to give them their marching orders.
April 14, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, I don't think they really are, per se. But if the fat misanthrope starts to bloviate about how they abandoned the distinguished ex-Senator (or risk abandoning him) and are thus letting Al Franken "steal" the election, I'll bet they fall right in line and do whatever the narcissist ninny demands of them.
April 14, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect the RNC, NRSC and the Minnesota GOP are starting to realize just how much money they have just lost and if they continue to appeal this decision all the way up to SCOTUS it may very well bankrupt them all as well as label them as spoiled sports, lacking the humility - a Christian virtue no less - that Gore showed in 2000 to accept the verdict and admit defeat.
April 14, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or that Conrad Burns showed in 2006 in conceding to Jon Tester. See Norm? There is precedent for a Republican that lost showing some class and maturity.
April 14, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP might not want the Bush/Gore Supreme Court decision brought to the forefront again given that everybody knows it was a rail road, especially given Bush/Cheney's approval numbers.
Cornyn's WW3 talk could be giving Coleman cover to "bow out gracefully", as though he could have fought for years with the GOP backing but decided to do what was right by Minnesotans.
Or maybe that criminal case is moving forward and the GOP doesn't want to be seen backing a candidate facing such charges.
Coleman bows out now, the GOP blocked Franken for six months, EFCA looks like it will be defeated regardless, and at most they could keep him out 2-3 more months tops anyways.
Of course Coleman could just be burning the 10 day window he has to file an appeal and will file it on the last day. Then he'd have 25 days to submit arguments/evidence to the court - meaning he could drag this out for 35 days and there would be nothing Franken could do about it.
April 14, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
25 days? Are you sure? Personally, I have no idea, but last time someone named a timeline for submission of arguments, they said 15 days.
April 14, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're very likely right, I probably combined the 10 days to launch the appeal with the 15 days for submission of evidence to come up with the 25 days and then added the 10 days again.
April 14, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman has 10 days (starting yesterday) to file an appeal. The panel then has 15 days to file the record with the MNSCT. If the MNSCT holds to the ordinary briefing rules, Coleman then has 30 days to file his main brief. Next, Franken has 30 days to file his brief. Coleman then has 10 days to file a reply brief. Once Coleman files his reply brief, the MNSCT can schedule the case for oral argument. That depends entirely on the court's calendar, but I would guess that in a normal case it would be at least 30 days before the argument is heard. After that, the MNSCT takes however much time it wants to render a decision.
So, unless the MNSCT acts to expedite this appeal, it would be 115 days or thereabouts before the MNSCT even begins to deliberate and then some completely unknowable amount of time after that before the MNSCT renders a decision.
Of course, I expect the MNSCT to expedite this appeal. How quickly it moves once expedited depends entirely on the MNSCT scheduling order. The 10 day appeal period plus 15 days for the panel to file the record is fixed by statute though (and therefore can't be reduced by the MNSCT). That's probably the 25 days that Walter Mitty referenced.
April 14, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are these "working days" or calendar days?
April 14, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's calendar days, unless the last day of one of the time periods falls on a weekend or holiday (in which case that time period is extended to the next business day).
Also, some of the time periods could be extended by 3 days if the preceding document that triggers the time period is served by mail. (For example, if Franken mailed his brief to Coleman instead of hand delivering it, then Coleman would get 13 days to file his reply instead of 10.)
April 14, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The GOP might not want the Bush/Gore Supreme Court decision brought to the forefront again given that everybody knows it was a rail road, especially given Bush/Cheney's approval numbers."
I'm thinking the same and I like your RR snark! And thinking that more broadly, any semblance of them believing in fair play, however attenuated or abstract, may be directly at risk, thus partly confounding their totalitarian yearnings. I'm serious in what I say above in reply to Linda Lou above, though, that I don't think they have the cojones to question the will of the Great Bloviater in case the bovine blowhard should take a notion.
April 14, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that large bag of wind blowing out of southern Florida isn't padding their pockets with the coin they need to continue the theatrical farce for an encore performance even though the audience has left their seats. It'll take a lot of coins to convince people this is just an intermission and not the final act. And I don't think the old barf bag would be willing to depart with his ill-gotten fortune for the sake of getting this staged farce all the way up to SCOTUS only to still not have sufficient grounds to change the original findings. It's a lose-lose situation, but I'm all for repuglicans throwing their ill-gotten gains down a bottomless pit.
April 14, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP might not want the Bush/Gore Supreme Court decision brought to the forefront again given that everybody knows it was a rail road, especially given Bush/Cheney's approval numbers.
More to the point, the **SCOTUS** is unlikely to want it brought to the forefront, Bush/Cheney approvals notwithstanding, because they as much as admitted it was a railroad in the wording of the decision itself which rather specifically said it wasn't to be used as a precedent.
It would take a lot of gall on the part of even the Krazy Koleman Krew to show up on the Court's doorstep with this case and this basis for bringing it. They've probably got the chutzpa, but I doubt the court's gonna reward 'em for it.
April 14, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they actually read the MN judges' ruling and realized to their horror that it's no longer just Coleman's lawyers playing to the Supremes, but the MN judges as well? The section of the ruling that invokes Bush v. Gore is very well done. If you haven't read it yet, enjoy!
http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/2/Public/Civil/41309%20coleman%20franken/Findings_of_Fact_Conclusions_of_Law_and_Order_for_Judgment.pdf
April 14, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since Bush v. Gore was an ad hoc finding not based on any law or precedent that I'm aware of - that's why the justices insisted it not be used as one, I'll bet they're thinking they can get lightening to strike twice on the same issue in their favor again. The new repuglican meme is rules don't matter if the court is packed with people aligned with your party ideology.
By the way, I keep getting load errors every time I try to download that url. Yours is the second site I've had the trouble with. Not a worry.
April 14, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read through that and...wow! They just blew away all of Coleman's claims. It should probably take the MNSC about as long as it takes to read the ruling to affirm the lower court.
April 14, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is some good legal writing.
April 14, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're probably waiting on marching orders from the leader of the Republican Party. When does Limbaugh's show start anyway?
April 14, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
As between Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, dontcha wonder how many of them listen in each day to the great sage's pearls of wisdom?
April 14, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, if Scalia, Alito and Roberts want to use this case to expand judicial review of elections for equal protection, that might not be such a bad thing. Think of the implications for issues like the disparity in voting machines between inner cities and suburbs. In the long term, a more expansive equal protection review might be a much greater boon to the Democratic party than seating Senator Franken would be.
April 14, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, but wouldn't that be legislating from the bench? The repuglicans have been on the bandwagon for quite a number of years about judges doing exactly that. Besides, the Constitution is silent on the Judiciary, Executive and Legislative roles in elections - its a State's Right issue under the 10th Amendment. Best for them to leave it alone.
April 14, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, its only legislating from the bench when conservatives don't like the outcome.
BTW: the Constitution is not silent on the branches' respective roles in this election. Article I, Sect. 5, cl. 1 expressly states: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...." Determing the outcome of this election is exclusively the province of the U.S. Senate. The issues currently being litigated in the courts should be resolved in the Senate, but the Republican filibuster threat makes that politically infeasible.
April 14, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are trying to figure out if it makes sense to even try to appeal this ruling. My gut tells me the MN SC will deny any appeal of the ruling, based on lack of grounds for the appeal itself.
How embarrassing. To appeal. And have your appeal denied because you are stupid.
April 14, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makes me wonder if their appeal will be that the justices weren't on the same wavelength as the Coleman team so they didn't understand their line of reasoning.
April 14, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're probably all still driving by the crash site gawking at the wreckage.
There's so little that they can do to make this look good for Norm that I think they'll be very quiet until the day that Franken shows up in DC. Then they'll scream to high heaven about him being there without talking about the process that got him there. There is no history for republicans.
April 14, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh they'll reference the process amid their bitter caterwauling, though. Simply and directly: Obama helped Franken "steal" that seat and the people need to rise up and get even. And you'll be able to learn all about such thievery among the curmudgeonly and imbecilic reader comments on Politico.com
April 14, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me likes the imagery.
As they read each of the gazillion slapdowns of Coleman in the opinion, they grimace, "oh, that hurts", with a mixture of disappointment (they really don't want to see Senator Franken) and schadenfreude (they're glad it's not them this is happening to - YET).
April 14, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric: You should call the Minnesota Republican Party for a comment. Haven't they already suggested that Coleman should concede? After all, they are the ones most likely to suffer from a backlash.
April 14, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be downright amazed if the GOP kept silent, especially the RNC that's been touting this as an equal protection issue. I heard Pawlenty here on MPR yesterday and he was still talking the line of "making sure all votes are counted" and "let the process run its course". Although I think, in the end, he'll sign the certificate once the MNSC rules against Coleman. T-Paw may be an party line-tower, but he can still be pragmatic when it comes to his own career. I think he knows that if he refuses to sign after the MNSC makes a ruling his chances for re-election would become slim to none.
April 14, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was Rachel's show last week, and he sounded, then, as if he was going to back Coleman all the way, and repeating the "count every vote".
And sounding pretty damn reasonable, actually.
April 14, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
To the best of my knowledge, MN State Election Law makes no mention of federal appeals as prerequisite of certificate issuance -- people have posted links to the relevant sections before.
As to T-Paw's "reasonableness", don't be fooled, he's a GOPer through and through and has consistently towed the party line like the lackey he is. When it comes to his public persona he plays the ultimate concern troll.
April 14, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I know he's a Republican, through and through. If I didn't follow politics, though, and had just tuned into Maddow, I'd think "Gee, he seems pretty sane, compared to others".
Which was disturbing to realize.
April 14, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the Republicans have set a pretty low bar.
If they can put a few words together without incitement to violence, a racial/homo slur, or getting caught with their pants down, they come across as reasonable and sane compared to their fellow Republicans.
April 14, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That brings up a good question ... If the Minnesota Supreme Court agrees that all the legally casted votes have been counted, can the Governor override their legal decision? Especially since he isn't an injured party in this decision how can he weigh in on this issue as governor?
April 14, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would appear that Pawlenty could hold up the issuance of the certificate since, for US Senators, he's the one who issues the certificate:
In an election for United States senator, the governor shall prepare an original certificate of election, countersigned by the secretary of state, and deliver it to the secretary of the United States Senate.
April 14, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So ...a court of proper jurisdiction ... is a pretty broad statement. I would assume, because we're talking Minnesota law, it means a court within the state of Minnesota. Sounds like the governor's hand are tied to what the Minnesota Supreme court rules. Am I wrong?
April 14, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) I like the tea leaves from the silence. The Rs have never been shy about boldly asserting lies, misstatements and talking points. The fact that they didn't line up to rant may indicate that they've decided to pick their battles a bit better and realize they have nothing more to gain from the Coleman albatross.
2) The MN S.CT. cannot refuse to hear the appeal. It's mandatory. Doesn't mean they have to spend much time or thought on it. They can affirm without comment, based on the quality of the decision and supporting memorandum.
3) As to costs, the decision says Coleman pays. It is not yet clear whether that means for the court and election officers costs, or Franken's legal fees, too. This may actually be the reason for the silence from the Nat'l Rs.
April 14, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My immediate impression was that Coleman had to pay for all court costs, both the ones incurred by the court itself and the ones incurred by Franken. I also understood that Coleman had to pay Franken's costs related to that little fiasco concerning Ms. Howell.
What is unclear to me is what exactly court costs entail. Filing fees? Copying costs? Cost of paying court officers and security? Portion of salary for judges and election officials? "Rental" of court space? As for the Howell issue, are they then on the hook for the number of billable hours costed to Franken for time related to that?
I'd really like to see Coleman and his cronies zapped for all Franken's expenses, particularly his atty expenses. After all, this challenge was found to be without any merit at all, so he was the immediate cause of all Franken's legal expenses related to the case. Including stuff like paying for parking for witnesses and whoever stood down there taking care of arriving witnesses. Many of them clearly needed extra help physically getting to court-like even car and escort services. Doesn't MN law say loser pays all? I'd love to see that enforced just to make the point that while Coleman's legally entitled to bring the case, he also has the responsibility to pay for it if he's found to be wrong on the merits.
April 14, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink