Sweet opinion. Coleman isn't exactly filing a frivolous claim here. Just because it doesn't rise to your standards doesn't mean he should forfeit his day in court in the name of appeasing a bunch of Democrats who feel they 'earned' the election. What lessons did we learn from Florida? We must process the ballots beyond any doubt. This isn't beyond reason. The Senate is working just fine without Coleman there.
I never claimed that Coleman's case was frivolous. He has filed, and appealed through the State Supreme Court of Minnesota. That is his right, even if the court finds strongly and consistently against him.
My complaint was that you tried to claim some sort of hypocrisy for supporting Gore in contesting the 2000 national election versus not supporting Coleman in contesting the 2008 senatorial election. Again, Bush v. Gore was to stop a recount, the Coleman case was to force specific procedures onto a state that had already performed a recount. Of course, Coleman also asked for a do-over. I simply think these are very different situations.
I don't see how your little personal attack makes any sense whatsoever. These are similar circumstances. Ballots, recounts, close calls, the Supreme Court, ect. Just because YOU think the state did a better job doesn't mean they actually did. Clearly many people disagree with you.
I really don't see what was a personal attack. I just said in other words that your concept of hypocrisy is wrong or at least wrongly applied. If that is not fair in a politics forum the what is? Now, if I called you thin-skinned, pillow-biting ninny *that* is a personal attack. (But I don't!)
If the MN Supreme Court agrees that the recount was fair, it really should be the end of the saga.
I don't know of anyone that is not a strong partisan saying the recount was done badly. But, ultimately, Coleman had his chance to prove this in court.
Let me ask you one simple question: How is it going to appear, after the unelected Supreme Court steps in and hands the win to Franken, when the state does recount the improperly excluded ballots and finds that Coleman actually won the election? Does Franken have to step down? Will this set a precedent? Or will nothing happen? Explain where equity is in that situation.
Well, first of all, unelected judges make decisions all the time that affect elections, such as 2000. I might not like the overt politicization of that decision, but it was legal and within precedent.
You posit an 'if' the size of Lake Minnetonka, but lets accept it for a minute. I believe the election results would stand, since there have been many cases of miscarried elections, both fraudulent and accidental. Coleman would have to file a suit and get the MN Supreme Court to order a new election. I don't know enough about constitutional law to say if the SCOTUS could order an election. Although, I think they did in a NH congressional race in 1972 when it was essentially a tie.
To answer your question, I followed the recount, and I would bet that it was ultimately the right outcome. Gore was cheated and life went on, Coleman lost, he should get over it.
