The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

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.

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.

I think this is going to be marvelous.  :D

Thank God it was not Oklahoma.

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

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

Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 14, 2009, 08:37:57 AM
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.

you mean, beating the Bush...

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.

Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 14, 2009, 02:05:13 PM
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.

Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 14, 2009, 02:05:13 PM

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..

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.

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 (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.

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. 

Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 15, 2009, 12:07:51 PM
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.

Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 15, 2009, 12:07:51 PM
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. 

Someone in a black suit should be knocking on your door shortly.

Harry Reid needs to seat Senator Franken now.

The people of Minnesota should be very proud that a careful, fair and transparent voting process has worked to produce a winner. This is exactly the opposite of what happened in 2000 where the Supreme Court suddenly stepped in to stop a recount because it might go against the man that five of the nine Supreme Court justices wanted to win the election. That was probably the most outrageous action since the Dred Scott decision in 1857 when the Supreme Court declared that blacks in America had no legal rights.

Quote from: FOTD on April 15, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Harry Reid needs to seat Senator Franken now.

The people of Minnesota should be very proud that a careful, fair and transparent voting process has worked to produce a winner. This is exactly the opposite of what happened in 2000 where the Supreme Court suddenly stepped in to stop a recount because it might go against the man that five of the nine Supreme Court justices wanted to win the election. That was probably the most outrageous action since the Dred Scott decision in 1857 when the Supreme Court declared that blacks in America had no legal rights.

Give it up already!  You sound like a sore snivelling little b!tch....

Quote from: FOTD on April 15, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Harry Reid needs to seat Senator Franken now.

The people of Minnesota should be very proud that a careful, fair and transparent voting process has worked to produce a winner. This is exactly the opposite of what happened in 2000 where the Supreme Court suddenly stepped in to stop a recount because it might go against the man that five of the nine Supreme Court justices wanted to win the election. That was probably the most outrageous action since the Dred Scott decision in 1857 when the Supreme Court declared that blacks in America had no legal rights.

:D  I hope so.  I can't wait for this show to start.

Quote from: FOTD on April 15, 2009, 12:19:06 PM

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

I asked very direct and honest questions requiring minimal effort on your part (the effort required was to know what it is you are talking about).  You responded by posting to some skit and then cutting and pasting something or other (I don't ever read your cut and pastes as a matter of habit).   I then repeated my two primary points and mocked your lack of effort in explaining your posting.

Thus, I am the one that refuses to constructively engage.

But in an effort to engage you one more time I will ask:

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.
- - -

Without this underlying discussion, your theory is just idiotic banter.  Or in AOX speak, the status quo.

Quote from: Conan71 on April 15, 2009, 12:56:54 PM
Give it up already!  You sound like a sore snivelling little b!tch....

What is the hold up? Let me guess.....unethical and hypocritical Gangs Of Pirates?

It's U.S. Senator Franken, according to Minnesota Supreme Court Decision. The Ruling was 5 to Zip in favor of Al. Get Out of the Way Loserman Coleman. It's over. Democracy and the Rule of Law Prevail.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/court-rules-franken-has-won-senate-seat/

June 30, 2009, 2:27 PM
Court Rules Franken Has Won Senate Seat
By KATE PHILLIPS
The Minnesota Supreme Court has just issued its long-awaited judgment in the Senate race, declaring that Democrat Al Franken is the winner.

The 32-page unanimous decision by the state's highest court was released after a seven-months long battle over the seat formerly held by Norm Coleman. On every ground, the judicial panel rejected Mr. Coleman's claims of trial errors or constitutional violations, and decided that Mr. Franken's election should be certified by the state as valid.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty had indicated as late as Monday that he was willing to certify Mr. Franken as the winner once the state's highest court decided the recount and Mr. Coleman's battle. On CNN on Sunday, Mr. Pawlenty said: "I'm prepared to sign it as soon as they give the green light."

Asked what he would do if Mr. Coleman decided to appeal to the federal courts, as had been mentioned before this ruling, Mr. Pawlenty added: "A federal court could stay or put a limit on or stop the effect of the state court ruling. If they chose, if they do that, I would certainly follow their direction. But if that doesn't happen promptly or drags out for any period of time, then we need to move ahead with signing this, particularly if I'm ordered to do that by the state court."

Some legal experts already are pointing out that the Minnesota Supreme Court did not issue a specific directive ordering Governor Pawlenty to sign the certificate. And there is, according to legal experts, a rehearing period of 10 days, under the Minnesota judges' ruling.

Mark Ritchie, Minnesota's secretary of state, issued a statement saying: "This unanimous opinion of the court affirms the accuracy and fairness of Minnesota's election laws and recount procedures. As required by Minnesota law, I will co-sign the election certificate as soon as it is issued by Governor Tim Pawlenty."

If Mr. Coleman concedes, Mr. Franken will become the Democrats' much coveted 60th vote. That is the number required to avert filibusters, and with both Senators Edward M. Kennedy and Robert C. Byrd absent due to illness, the Democrats have sometimes scrambled to make sure they had lined up enough votes.

Spokesmen for both Mr. Coleman and Mr. Franken issued statements announcing news conferences later this afternoon. And the governor's office was also expected to weigh in later this afternoon.

In its decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the trial court, which had concluded that Mr. Franken won the election by about 312 votes. Throughout this battle, Mr. Coleman and his lawyers have cited discarded or wrongly discredited absentee ballots as well as other miscounted votes as part of the evidence of problems with the state's count in this race.

But at oral arguments on June 1, the Supreme Court judges were highly skeptical of Mr. Coleman's claims, on the counting grounds or constitutional grounds. John Schwartz, our national legal affairs correspondent, attended the arguments and indicated the judges' questions made it fairly clear that the panel was not persuaded it should overturn the findings of the trial court, or the State Canvassing Board before that.

That was borne out in the panel's ruling today.

In reaction to the decision, Senator Bob Menendez, the chairman of the National Democratic Senatorial Committee, said this in his statement:

"As we've seen over the past 238 days, no matter how many times Norm Coleman goes to court, the result of the election never changes: Al Franken earned more votes than Norm Coleman. Al Franken was elected to the Senate and he ought to be able to get to work for the people of Minnesota. We've always said that Norm Coleman deserved his day in court, and he got eight months. Now we expect Governor Pawlenty to do the right thing, follow the law, and sign the election certificate. From health care to the Supreme Court to getting our economy moving again, the challenges facing us are complex and we need Al Franken in the Senate. In this historic and urgent moment in our history, Minnesotans have gone long enough without full representation. Al Franken will be an critical voice on the issues before us and it's time to let him get to work."
Just this morning, MSNBC's First Read listed several factoids that have accumulated during this fight:

$51.1 million has been raised between Coleman and Franken for the entire campaign
– $50.3 million has been spent between the two candidates
– $11 million (at least) has been spent on the recount
– 2,424,946 votes were cast
– 312 votes separate the candidates (Franken leads)
– 239 days since Election Day 2008
– 34 weeks since Election Day 2008
– 7 months, 27 days since Election Day 2008
– 4 seasons seen since Election Day 2008 election.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.  Franken as a Senator makes as much sense as Senator Hannity or Senator Limbaugh.

(http://www.pubhousedialogues.com/media/blogs/curmudgeon/stuartSmalley.jpg)

Of course this is that state's idea of a governor (Jesse wasn't that bad a gov, I just like the wrasslin' photos of him) Nice skullett

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_drUMJ9HF-tQ/SHThpPuXjjI/AAAAAAAACwo/8MdTQKXznKQ/s400/Jesse.jpg)

O'Reily's Head just exploded...

Wash your mouth out, Conan.

http://baldwinparkdemocrat.blogspot.com/2009/06/minnesota-upreme-court-decision-on.html

Quote from: FOTD on June 30, 2009, 04:02:10 PM
O'Reily's Head just exploded...

Wash your mouth out, Conan.

Wouldn't be so bad if I hadn't had five Long Island Teas for lunch.  Man that burns on the way up.

Senator Franken:

(http://nobama.com/members/images/fbfiles/images/franken4.jpg)

You are an insensitive angry white man, Guido.  TG, I had the trash can next to my desk.

A couple of fellow Deadheads.....they both love FOTD!

(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3751/anallubefrankin.jpg)

The only good post ever by BB!

Yes!
The lesson continues.

Quote from: Breadburner on June 30, 2009, 10:19:37 PM
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3751/anallubefrankin.jpg)

Is that woman auditioning for a job working for Bill Clinton?

Quote from: guido911 on July 01, 2009, 12:33:51 PM
Is that woman auditioning for a job working for Bill Clinton?

And by-golly she's fugly enough for him...

Quote from: guido911 on July 01, 2009, 12:33:51 PM
Is that woman auditioning for a job working for Bill Clinton?

Hillary....

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=232244&title=Franken's-Time

Inhofe keeps calling Franken a clown. 

Sadly, Inhofe is a joke.  (But not the funny kind.)

Quote from: PonderInc on July 08, 2009, 04:50:25 PM
Inhofe keeps calling Franken a clown. 

Sadly, Inhofe is a joke.  (But not the funny kind.)

Inhofe being joke (matter of opinion as evidenced by his re-election) has no bearing on Franken being a clown (professional comedian or otherwise).

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 08, 2009, 06:39:22 PM
Inhofe being joke (matter of opinion as evidenced by his re-election) has no bearing on Franken being a clown (professional comedian or otherwise).

When you live in the reddest of the red states and base your campaign on essentially calling your opponent a wacky hippy, what do you expect?  This state embarrasses me on a daily basis, and not just the Repubs.  Andrew Rice's commercials about the animals going over the cliff were a little strange, but hey, he got Master Inhofe to spend campaign money that he thought he wouldn't have to.

Al Franken shows 'em how it's done
by David Waldman
http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/9/5/105258/4804
Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:05:09 AM PDT

"This video is making the rounds, and it should, because it's just fascinating to watch Franken defuse a teabagging situation.

Here's the description from the original source of the video, Dusty Trice:

I got to witness something really special the other day. About a dozen tea party activists had staked out Sen. Al Franken's booth at the Minnesota State Fair and confronted him loudly when he arrived. But within minutes, he'd turned an unruly crowd into a productive conversation on health care. The discussion went from insurance reform, to the public option, to veterans benefits, to cap and trade. He made a few laugh and even told a touching story that moved a few to tears. A whole lot of common ground was found.




I absolutely love the woman at the beginning of the video confronts him with this ridiculous dichotomy, "Are you going to vote the way the people want... or are you going to vote how Obama wants you to vote?" And how she gives him the, "Oh, really?" sidelong glance when he dares to tell her, "I'm going to vote the way I want to vote." Her wry grin disappears when he continues on to say, "Now let me tell you how I decide how I vote. I use my independent judgment."

Grr! Boo! Independent judgment sucks!

But in fact, she stands quietly and listens, because she knows she's just been put in an indefensible position.

The video is well worth your time. That's why it's here"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSoOrVWepu7eXENtB5ohsgAI7_lAD9CLA0KG2

ABOUT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(AP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — Democratic Sen. Al Franken has taken the unusual step of shutting down Sen. Joe Lieberman on the Senate floor.
Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, currently is the target of liberal wrath over his opposition to a government-run insurance plan in the health care bill.
Franken was presiding over the Senate Thursday afternoon as Lieberman spoke about amendments he planned to offer to the bill. Lieberman asked for an additional 30 seconds to finish — a routine request — but Franken refused to grant the time.
Lieberman, appearing taken aback, said he'd submit the rest of his statement in writing. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona came to his friend Lieberman's defense and criticized Franken's behavior as inappropriate.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Not a good move.

Upstaging a key Senator that holds a swing vote in the healthcare bill passage is a stupid move. There was no reason to refuse Lieberman's request for 30 seconds more except to be a jerk.

Quote from: HazMatCFO on December 18, 2009, 03:55:44 AM
Not a good move.

Upstaging a key Senator that holds a swing vote in the healthcare bill passage is a stupid move. There was no reason to refuse Lieberman's request for 30 seconds more except to be a jerk.

Who was being the jerk?  Wasn't it Turncoat's idea for the early Medicare buy-in?  Then he was against it?

Time for the Dim's to chuck him out of the caucus.

It was a pretty good tweak from Franken, I've gotta say, even if in the grand scheme of things it didn't mean much.  Old Man River McCain seemed completely offended which I take as an excellent omen. 

Really, if Lieberman's going to singlehandedly dismantle the signature legislation of the party that he caucuses with, he should expect a few lumps.  And if this is the only lump that he gets he should consider himself supremely lucky.

Quote from: Hoss on December 18, 2009, 06:59:04 AM
Who was being the jerk?  Wasn't it Turncoat's idea for the early Medicare buy-in?  Then he was against it?

Time for the Dim's to chuck him out of the caucus.

Not allowing an additional 30 seconds to a Senator to finish their point was being a jerk and a stupid thing to do. There was no reason to refuse the request except to be petty.

You're trying to get Lieberman to side with the democrats to get 60 votes, this isn't the way to do it.

So, John McCain said he'd never seen this action by a Senator in all his years in the Senate. Yet, McCain did the same stunt himself during the Bush years. Lucky this dim wit is not President. He's a liar and senile.