Breaking: Say hello to Senator Al Franken; Update: Coleman concedes

posted at 2:35 pm on June 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

To no one’s great shock, the Minnesota Supreme Court has rejected Norm Coleman’s appeal of the election contest and awarded the Senate election to Al Franken.  The decision, expected last week, stated that Coleman failed to prove that recounting thousands of rejected ballots would have impacted the final results:

It is U.S. Sen. Al Franken.

The Minnesota Supreme Court today decided that Franken, a Democrat, won the highest number of votes in last year’s U.S. Senate race and deserves a signed election certificate.

The court said that Republican Norm Coleman didn’t prove that a lower court made mistakes requiring a rehearing of the case. Coleman had asked the court to order thousands of rejected absentee ballots counted. He had hoped the counting would allow him to overcome Franken’s 312-vote lead.

As I wrote before, the equal-protection argument Coleman used for this appeal had more chance of success in federal court rather than state court.  The state court kept itself to the issues of state law, rather than the more expansive federal issue of equal treatment of votes.  No one who followed the arguments at the court can be surprised by this decision, which was unanimous.

Coleman could push this into the federal courts, but he has yet to commit to doing so.  Tim Pawlenty indicated that he would follow the state Supreme Court’s direction in handling the election certificate, which means Franken will probably take his seat this week in the Senate.  If Coleman appeals to the federal court, he will have to also deal with Franken’s status as a seated Senator.

My guess — and this is just a guess — is that Coleman will call it a day.  We’ll soon see.

Update: Eric Black reports that the certificate was not specifically ordered.  Hmmm.  That gives Pawlenty an out, if he chooses to wait for a Coleman federal appeal.

Update II: Ignore my original update II.  ABC News sent out an old report, and I didn’t catch it at first.

Update III: Catching this via Twitter from Howard Kurtz — Norm Coleman has conceded.  He wants to focus on fishing more than the governor’s race for now, but I think he decided to stop now to preserve his viability within the state of Minnesota.  Probably not a bad decision for him personally.

Update IV: Coleman’s statement, as provided by his campaign:

“Ours is a government of laws, not men and women.  The Supreme Court of Minnesota has spoken and I respect its decision and will abide by the result.  It’s time for Minnesota to come together under the leaders it has chosen and move forward. I join all Minnesotans in congratulating our newest United States Senator – Al Franken.

“Just a few last words about my legal challenge.  Sure, I wanted to win.  Not just for myself but for my wonderful supporters and the important values I have always fought for.  I also thought it was important to stand up for enfranchising thousands of Minnesotans whose votes weren’t counted like the others were.  After all, issues and politicians come and go, but voting is fundamental.

“It is the essence of democracy so I knew we needed to do everything we could to get it right.

“I am forever grateful and humbled by the people of Minnesota who have given me the honor to represent them – and even more grateful for their wisdom, courage, patience and understanding over these past several months.

“The path that I take in the future is not nearly as important today as the path that we must now — all travel on together — to strengthen our state and our nation.

“I have never believed that my service is irreplaceable.  We have reached the point where further litigation damages the unity of our state, which is also fundamental.  In these tough times, we all need to focus on the future.  And the future today is we have a new United States Senator.

“I congratulate Al Franken and his victory in this election.  He now enjoys the advantage that our Congressional Delegation has over the other 525 people on Capitol Hill: he represents Minnesota.

“I know the great ideas, the amazing work ethic and the historic ability to come together to get things done in this state will help him greatly, as it has me.

“Speaking of which, I think we all should take a moment to thank Amy Klobuchar and her staff.  They have done a great job of carrying the burden of two Senators these last six months.  She is an extraordinary public servant.

“I don’t reach this point with any big regrets.  I ran the campaign I wanted.  I conducted the legal challenge I wanted.  And I have always believed you do the best you can and leave the results up to a higher authority.  I’m at peace with that.  As to my future plans, that’s a subject for another day.

“We live in a great country and a great state.  We can all have confidence that by some path we don’t yet know – one which we can all come together to lay out – we will arrive at the better future we all seek.

“Thank you and may God bless Minnesota and America.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Ha, there ought to be some priceless sound bites out of Franken.
I guess if we have to further slide into hell we might as well collect some priceless material for future campaigns.

Way to go Minnesota!

ORconservative on June 30, 2009 at 3:25 PM

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Just let me know where to send it. I’ll even overnight it!!

But you have to treat it with care..

HoustonRight on June 30, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Too bad you are seeing it that way.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM

is that you Getalife? FO troll!

jwp1964 on June 30, 2009 at 3:26 PM

LOL, you’re having trouble with this aren’t you? The 2nd amendment wasn’t created with the overthrow of the government in mind, but as a means for the citizenry to resist the tyranny of the government.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 3:19 PM

The Framers of the Constitution, based upon the wisdom of history, knew that tyrants would take over here one day, just as in other parts of the world.

In other words, they predicted the coming of the Obama/ACORN/Soros triumvirate.

Thus, the Second Amendment. That is probably the last defense Americans have, once everything else under the Bill of Rights are taken away.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

- from the Declaration of Independence, yet another “right-wing terrorist manifesto”, according to the Democrats.

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Actually I would think before we go to the second amendment we go to the 2010 and 2012 elections, but who am I kidding…
mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Well sure, because any federal government willing to ignore the laws and Constitution of the United States is going to act fairly during an election. How could I miss it??? *facepalm*

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 3:27 PM

“shall not be infringed” has a different meaning in your made up universe doesn’t it

runner on June 30, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Free Speech = Terrorism
Global Warning Denying = Treason
Shall Not Be Infringed = We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution

Disturb the Universe on June 30, 2009 at 3:27 PM

mycowardice:

I think MB4 can speak for himself, but he did but an if they in there.

And if Congress passes such a law, I think it will head for the Supreme Court. But you know what? If they intend to do that then they should just come right out and say it rather than try to have it both ways by telling gun owners they have nothing to fear while at the same time pandering to people like you.

That is the Democrats for you. When trying to make it possible for all sorts of people who could not afford homes to buy homes was good politics, they not only supported it they took the credit for it. The minute it blew up in their faces, they blamed the Republicans.

Now the Republicans knew a lot of that stuff was a bad idea. Bush even tried on several occasions to bring Fannie Mae under control. But they did not try hard enough. And in the end they got the blame while the Democrats feigned shock and surprise and innocence.

No more of that. More and more people out here are making it plain that they think a lot of this a pile of manure. That way when it blows up in your faces, you can take the blame. As you should.

Meanwhile you can go back to assuming that anyone who practices his second amendment rights to own a firearm is a dangerous individual.

Terrye on June 30, 2009 at 3:28 PM

And if they repeal freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? The fourth and fifth amendments? How about if the entire Bill of Rights is repealed by Congress? Are you going to sit there and abide by the law because Congress passed it?

Your handle is appropriate.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Amerpundit,

Even the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Heller said, and I quote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone throughthe 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake anexhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on theright to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

So the SCOTUS says that some restrictions are acceptable.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Just let me know where to send it. I’ll even overnight it!!

But you have to treat it with care..

HoustonRight on June 30, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Hey! I live in the Houston area! Can we chat?

Are you going to any of the Tea Parties? Which one? I think I want to go to the one in Conroe – it’s the closest to my house.

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:29 PM

So the SCOTUS says that some restrictions are acceptable.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:28 PM

SCOTUS also ruled Roe v. Wade. It also struck down the NRA, which I’m sure the left loves. Doesn’t mean SCOTUS is always right.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Thus, the Second Amendment. That is probably the last defense Americans have, once everything else under the Bill of Rights are taken away.

200 million guns in the hands of 70 million gun owning citizens, that is one he!l of a demographic.

I pity the federal agents tasked with entering the Everglades or the Okefenokee to tell THOSE people that their guns are to be confiscated.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Let me see, it seems to me I remember people on the left saying they would take to the streets if they lost again in 2009. I remember books and movies about killing Bush. I remember burning flags and calling soldiers baby killers and murderers. I remember the Truthers yammering like magpies about Bushhitler.

But now all of a sudden, the left is in control and they want everyone to just get along and stfu.

mycowardice is a good name for you.

Terrye on June 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM

This creeps me out. This is what this country has sunk to. I am getting so depressed…..

NJ Red on June 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Some restrictions? What does that even mean? There are differences and restrictions right now from state to state and town to town.

In fact it seems to me there was a recent SCOTUS decision that went the way of the gunowners in DC.

Terrye on June 30, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Terrye on June 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Indeed. They can dish it out, but don’t expect them to take it.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:32 PM

But anyways, if Congress passes law restricting the 2nd amendment, then you would think law abiding Americans would… abide by those laws.

Uhh you do know what “shall not be infringed” means, right?

You also know that Congress cannot amend the constitution without approval of the state legislatures, right?

So if the Congress was to do what you propose, it would be illegal and they would be the ones breaking the law, not those who would continue to bear arms.

Methinks you need a civics lesson.

Joe Caps on June 30, 2009 at 3:32 PM

SCOTUS also ruled Roe v. Wade. It also struck down the NRA, which I’m sure the left loves. Doesn’t mean SCOTUS is always right.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:29 PM

The SCOTUS also once ruled that an African-American slave was not a person, but a “property”, and that he/she had no rights.

It also once ruled that separate accommodations for two different races were “equal”.

Either way, the SCOTUS have had their eggs on their faces before, and they will have them again.

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:29 PM

I’m working the one downtown on the 3rd. Supposed to be a huge turnout. It’s from 4-8. I may attend the conroe one also.

HoustonRight on June 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM

NJRed:

Look in history. There have always been clowns in the Senate, like Huey Long.

Terrye on June 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM

That should certainly improve the stature of the US Senate. What a bunch of a$$ wipes in Minnesota. Who next, Borat? The voters in Minnesota should build a huge bon fire and jump in it.

What a disgrace Minnesota is.

saiga on June 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM

SCOTUS also ruled Roe v. Wade. It also struck down the NRA, which I’m sure the left loves. Doesn’t mean SCOTUS is always right.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:29 PM

You’re right, but it was the majority let by people like Scalia. The dissent was not even willing to go as far. So I think when even Scalia thinks like that, trying to fit even more in the 2nd amendment is legally speaking courageous to say the least.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:34 PM

T

his creeps me out. This is what this country has sunk to. I am getting so depressed…..

NJ Red on June 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM

It’s going to get worse.

Jeff from WI on June 30, 2009 at 3:34 PM

I look forward to the legalization of gay marriage, the closing of Gitmo, the ending of open-ended internments, the cancellation of DADT, the stopping of Predator attacks, the massive growth of the economy, the reduction of the unemploment rate to less than 5%, the releasing of Gitmo prisoners, the stopping of federal wiretaps and of course no raising of taxes for anyone making less than $250k.

That will happen now, right?

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Joe:

As if mycowardice even knows what is required to amend the constitution. States? We don’t need no stinkin states they say, we have King Obama.

Terrye on June 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM

You’re right, but it was the majority let by people like Scalia. The dissent was not even willing to go as far. So I think when even Scalia thinks like that, trying to fit even more in the 2nd amendment is legally speaking courageous to say the least.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:34 PM

“Shall not be infringed”. The Constitution wasn’t written in Latin. I don’t agree with everything Scalia writes, either.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM

That should certainly improve the stature of the US Senate. What a bunch of a$$ wipes in Minnesota. Who next, Borat? The voters in Minnesota should build a huge bon fire and jump in it.

What a disgrace Minnesota is.

saiga on June 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM

While in Minneapolis, be sure to visit the phone booth on Hennipin Ave,. that contains the Minnesota Viking Hall Of Fame.

Jeff from WI on June 30, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Let me see, it seems to me I remember people on the left saying they would take to the streets if they lost again in 2009. I remember books and movies about killing Bush. I remember burning flags and calling soldiers baby killers and murderers. I remember the Truthers yammering like magpies about Bushhitler.

But now all of a sudden, the left is in control and they want everyone to just get along and stfu.

Not at all, but I personally didn’t endorse armed insurection then, and don’t now either.

mycowardice is a good name for you.

Terrye on June 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM

I know, I must be the only one around here hiding behind a pseudonym.

In fact it seems to me there was a recent SCOTUS decision that went the way of the gunowners in DC.

Terrye on June 30, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Yeah that’s Heller, the decision I quoted from.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:36 PM

I look forward to the legalization of gay marriage, the closing of Gitmo, the ending of open-ended internments, the cancellation of DADT, the stopping of Predator attacks, the massive growth of the economy, the reduction of the unemploment rate to less than 5%, the releasing of Gitmo prisoners, the stopping of federal wiretaps and of course no raising of taxes for anyone making less than $250k.

That will happen now, right?

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM

And maybe the outlawing of homeschooling, the total shut-down of Christians from any aspect of public life, the massive firings of people for political reasons, etc…

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Obama’s “Shining City On A Hill”…looks like Detroit

Jeff from WI on June 30, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Joe:

As if mycowardice even knows what is required to amend the constitution. States? We don’t need no stinkin states they say, we have King Obama.

Terrye on June 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Nope. It’s Emperor Obama. Don’tcha know?

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM

The SCOTUS also once ruled that an African-American slave was not a person, but a “property”, and that he/she had no rights.
It also once ruled that separate accommodations for two different races were “equal”.

Sure, but in both cases (as mycoward opined) the people respected the laws and did nothing to correct the interpretation of the court or the Congress. The Civil War and the civil rights movement never occurred, I’m fairly certain of that.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM

“Shall not be infringed”. The Constitution wasn’t written in Latin. I don’t agree with everything Scalia writes, either.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM

I will agree with you on that. There is a clear distinction between how an ordinary person would read the constitution and how courts actually interpret the document (including your favorite judges whoever they are)

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM

I may need to go back and re-read Revelations, but I’m pretty sure Al Franken winning any public office is one of the signs of the apocalypse.

SailorDave on June 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM

The SCOTUS also once ruled that an African-American slave was not a person, but a “property”, and that he/she had no rights.

It also once ruled that separate accommodations for two different races were “equal”.

Either way, the SCOTUS have had their eggs on their faces before, and they will have them again.

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Contemporary. Women didn’t vote either. Somehow, in spite of that, we made it this far and built the most powerful country in the world.

Oh well.

saiga on June 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM

I know, I must be the only one around here hiding behind a pseudonym.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:36 PM

There’s a difference between using a pseudonym to protect your job and saying you’d stand by as basic Constitutional rights are stripped away. By the way, you can find my real name at my website. I use a handle because it’s easier to login and I can’t change it.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:36 PM

I don’t think anyone here wants it to come to that. There has been much discussion here about that very issue. But, if our liberties are jeopadized and the contitution rendered obsolete than fasten your seatbeat.

HoustonRight on June 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM

I may need to go back and re-read Revelations, but I’m pretty sure Al Franken winning any public office is one of the signs of the apocalypse.

SailorDave on June 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM

It certainly is

Jeff from WI on June 30, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Nope. It’s Emperor Obama. Don’tcha know?

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Actually it’s President Obama.

Just like any other President.

Also, it will soon be Senator Al Franken… (to get back on topic!)

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:40 PM

I will agree with you on that. There is a clear distinction between how an ordinary person would read the constitution and how courts actually interpret the document (including your favorite judges whoever they are)

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Indeed. The people read the document the way it was actually written and intended, while far too often the courts see what they want to protect themselves politically or publicly and believe on a personal level.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM

I may need to go back and re-read Revelations, but I’m pretty sure Al Franken winning any public office is one of the signs of the apocalypse.

SailorDave on June 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Let’s not go that far, shall we?

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM

HoustonRight on June 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Guess it’s obvious I’m no multi-tasker.

HoustonRight on June 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM

But anyways, if Congress passes law restricting the 2nd amendment, then you would think law abiding Americans would… abide by those laws.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:19 PM

You should keep in mind that American military officers, unlike German military officers of Hitler’s time, swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any congress and not to any president.

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71)”

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
- John F. Kennedy (Speaking to a gathering of 49 Nobel Prize recipients at the White House on April 29, 1962)

MB4 on June 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Tammy Bruce has a better lead photo.

JackOfClubs on June 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Contemporary. Women didn’t vote either. Somehow, in spite of that, we made it this far and built the most powerful country in the world.

Oh well.

saiga on June 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Yeah. That, too.

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Stuart goes to Congress. Fan-effing-tastic.

TheUnrepentantGeek on June 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM

While in Minneapolis, be sure to visit the phone booth on Hennipin Ave,. that contains the Minnesota Viking Hall Of Fame.
Jeff from WI on June 30, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Like Ed, I’m a lifelong Steelers fan. Six rings…man, that’s a lot of metal to wear on the hand.

However, I am a Twins fan and I promise I will visit the Milwaukee Brewers World Series Victory Pavilion next time I’m in Wisconsin, just to compare their Series wins to that of the Twinkies. Don’t suppose you know the address?

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Breaking: Say hello to Senator Al Franken

And how many more rights will we have to say good-bye to?

fourdeucer on June 30, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Yeah that’s Heller, the decision I quoted from.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:36 PM

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the SCOTUS (or any court) has the authority to dictate (or ‘rule’) on the meaning of the Constitution. It doesn’t (you’re welcome to try and find such an authorization in the Constitution, but you will not succeed).

It/they only are authorized to interpret such aspects of the Constitution as they relate to a specific case of law. If they find that a particular law is at odds with a Constitutional provision, then the supreme law of the land wins, and the case should be dismissed.

Note that I did not say “strike down the law” – they don’t have that authority either (again, try to find any declaration of judicial veto power over the legislature in the Constitution), although it can be argued that dismissing unconstitutional cases would ultimately have that effect.

LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Im not surprised anymore..
it doesnt matter because as long as the Dumb ass american citizen keeps wanting it both ways
you end up with razor thin elections

and low and behold we end up with
A bunch of liberal traitors running the insane asylmn
A empty suit non citizen for a president
and a senator who WEARSA DIAPERS on LIVE TV..

and you wonder why our country is so screwed up!!!

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

veteranoutrage on June 30, 2009 at 3:46 PM

And how many more rights will we have to say good-bye to?

fourdeucer on June 30, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Very soon, to all of them.

newton on June 30, 2009 at 3:49 PM

The people read the document the way it was actually written and intended, while far too often the courts see what they want to protect themselves politically or publicly and believe on a personal level.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Many Americans are also ignorant of the mode of english used to construct the founding documents. Misinterpretation is inevitable when you don’t speak their language.

In many respects, my classic english lang & lit education leaves me well equipped to understand these documents. I am stunned by the bizarre way so many Americans are desperate to warp such straightforward english to suit their corrupt agenda.

LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Indeed. The people read the document the way it was actually written and intended, while far too often the courts see what they want to protect themselves politically or publicly and believe on a personal level.

amerpundit on June 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM

I’m no fan of ‘original intent’, but even if you go with such a philosophy, judges applying ‘original intent’ supplement that by all sorts of rules and tests that don’t appear in the document and that no one would ever guess exist.

For example, if you read the paragraph I copy pasted earlier, where does it say that felon can’t or can have weapons, etc. Some more original intent? Then you can read one of the dissents (I forgot which one) that shows conflicting original intents the majority sideline. It’s not pretty.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:50 PM

So Coleman is supposed to speak at 4 with Franken speaking at 5:15 Eastern I presume. Is Coleman going to give up the fight?

msmveritas on June 30, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Fv,kin squareheads! Minnestoa is offically a joke state.
New Jersey laughs at you MN.

RobCon on June 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Hey Hey Hey…New Jersey here!! Bwahahahahahahah
you are so right.

NJ Red on June 30, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Congrats Minnesota. Your selection of Jesse The Body Ventura as Gov put you in rarified air. Your election of Al Franken seals the deal.

Minnesota is officially the stupidest state in the union. A laughing stock. People from Minnesota are so open minded, their brains have fallen out. They elected a bad comedian with no career who hasn’t even lived in the state since childhood to be their US Senator. What, was the artist formerly known as Prince too busy?

Ha! What a joke. Minnesota…land of the stark raving mad.

Sorry Ed…I know you love it, but wow. Just….wow.

DrW on June 30, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Minnesota won’t survive Franken and Franken will not survive D.C.
a win – win!!!

izoneguy on June 30, 2009 at 3:54 PM

I’m no fan of ‘original intent’

Do you have any idea of the horrific consequences of your words? You are suggesting that we should not interpret the Constitution as it was conceived while the words were penned. Do you understand the catastrophic significance of that?

where does it say that felon can’t or can have weapons, etc.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:50 PM

A well regulated Militia probably shouldn’t have known criminals bearing arms, d’ya think?

LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Amazing time — he’ll vote for healthcare, gay rights, and cap and trade. I hope he makes the neocons in the Senate explode with anger.

dcwvu on June 30, 2009 at 3:57 PM

MB4 on June 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM

You are correct. We took an Oath to the Constitution, period
“All enemies foreign and domestic”
The “oh so reasonable troll” is looking at Iran and Hondouras,and getting a case of the willies eh?
Just like our would-be dictator.

“Claire, oh Claire, is it time yet”?

Firefly56 on June 30, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Coleman called Franken to congratulate him, done deal.

msmveritas on June 30, 2009 at 4:01 PM

I’m looking forward to the free-for-all that will insue when Sen. Franken tries to strangle a fellow senator for disagreeing with him.

drflykilla on June 30, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Amazing time — he’ll vote for healthcare, gay rights, and cap and trade. I hope he makes the neocons in the Senate explode with anger.
dcwvu on June 30, 2009 at 3:57 PM

CrapTrade and healthcare are a given, he’s a liberal, but gay marriage? How, when even Ogabe won’t agree to such a thing, the same Ogabe who equated homosexuality with incest.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Do you have any idea of the horrific consequences of your words? You are suggesting that we should not interpret the Constitution as it was conceived while the words were penned. Do you understand the catastrophic significance of that?

where does it say that felon can’t or can have weapons, etc.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 3:50 PM
A well regulated Militia probably shouldn’t have known criminals bearing arms, d’ya think?

LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Absolutely. And there are SC justices who think just like me. The heresy!

Write some statement/law today. Give it to your spouse. Wait 10 years. Tell me if he/she can accurately see what your “intent” was when you wrote that.

Original intent doesn’t exist. It’s just an educated guess of what people might have thought 200 years ago. It’s imprecise because you can never tell what they really thought and the record is never perfect enough to tell you what they really thought or meant. Add in the mix the fact multiple people agreed on something and you will get dozens of ‘original intent’.

As for the criminals, if a felon has paid his debt to society, I don’t see what would consitutionally exclude him from being in a militia. Can you point me to that section in the Constitution?

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 4:02 PM

A comedian as a US Senator…..
highly appropriate.

gordo on June 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM

COLEMAN JUST CONCEDED

ordi on June 30, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 4:02 PM

I wasn’t referring to gay rights…I was referring to the repeal of DADT, amongst other things. It’s gonna happen…brace your bigoted self.

dcwvu on June 30, 2009 at 4:05 PM

A well regulated Militia probably shouldn’t have known criminals bearing arms, d’ya think?

LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Isn’t it amazing the very people opposed to the 2nd. amendment may someday rely on those of us who support it to defend them against the very evil they support.

fourdeucer on June 30, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Keep a 5-lb tuna handy, for slapping that twit.

mojo on June 30, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Proof that 50% of the people are stupid enough to vote for a circus clown.

You want the clown, you get the clown.

Bicyea on June 30, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Coleman’s an idiot. Not a real Republican, but the last thread holding the Congress from going Full Retard ™.

The MN Supreme Court gave Coleman an option to have a rehearing if he wanted to, which they RARELY do. He should have taken that option, and then took it to the SCOTUS.

Enoxo on June 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Very classy exit from Coleman just now.

Siobhan on June 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 4:02 PM

So instead we create a million different interpretations which are so beyond the pale that “right to privacy” becomes a right to abortion, but apparently not to whether I buckle my seatbelt in my own car or eat food that contains transfats.

The original language should be kept and utilized, with all the good and bad possibilities which are inherent.

The liberal interpretation of the Constitution as a “living breathing document” is fraught with disaster and repression.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Original intent doesn’t exist. It’s just an educated guess of what people might have thought 200 years ago

Rubbish. We have the luxury of a wealth of well-articulated documents that illuminate their reasoning. Even though debate is understandable, the mere notion that it might be ‘difficult’, so we should strive to understand, is absurd. We must always do our utmost to honor the original intent of the document. Anything else is fraud.

As for the criminals, if a felon has paid his debt to society, I don’t see what would consitutionally exclude him from being in a militia. Can you point me to that section in the Constitution?

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Your very question betrays your woeful ignorance of the purpose of the document. My original response stands.

LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM

The Night of the Long Knives is coming…

newton on June 30, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Good for Coleman to gracefully concede and not drag things out further.

starfleet_dude on June 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Isn’t it amazing the very people opposed to the 2nd. amendment may someday rely on those of us who support it to defend them against the very evil they support.

fourdeucer on June 30, 2009 at 4:05 PM

I appreciate your astute observation :)

However, I will not be defending them. They can reap it.

LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Good for Coleman to gracefully concede and not drag things out further.

starfleet_dude on June 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Is this confirmed? Do we have the pleasure of Senator Franken now?

Awesome. I’ll get the popcorn.

LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 4:11 PM

I wasn’t referring to gay rights…I was referring to the repeal of DADT, amongst other things. It’s gonna happen…brace your bigoted self.
dcwvu on June 30, 2009 at 4:05 PM

You would think Ogabe would have done it by now, considering that he has gotten Congress to pass so many other pieces of his legislation. Why is he waiting?

BTW, where did I say I was against DADT? Who is the bigot here?

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 4:11 PM

A comedian as a US Senator…..
highly appropriate.

gordo on June 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Well we have a weekly TV star, comedian & sports analyst as President.

Jeff from WI on June 30, 2009 at 4:11 PM

I can’t wait for Bill O’Reilly to say “Senator Al Franken”. He might pop a vessel as he strains to get the words out… ;p

starfleet_dude on June 30, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Very classy exit from Coleman just now.

Siobhan on June 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Classy exits don’t mean a thing.

newton on June 30, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Question for mycowardice:

Do you have the right to defend yourself?

Chainsaw56 on June 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Your very question betrays your woeful ignorance of the purpose of the document. My original response stands.

LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM

On it’s face, the document doesn’t exclude felons from being in militias. At least I don’t see it.

It’s you that is making that claim that they should be excluded.

As for finding the original intent, it’s impossible because it doesn’t exist.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Maybe some day SOMEONE in this country will take an election seriously.

Ortzinator on June 30, 2009 at 4:14 PM

Original intent doesn’t exist. It’s just an educated guess of what people might have thought 200 years ago. It’s imprecise because you can never tell what they really thought and the record is never perfect enough to tell you what they really thought or meant. Add in the mix the fact multiple people agreed on something and you will get dozens of ‘original intent’.

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 4:02 PM

So, do you agree with Speaker Bass of CA regarding the terrorism of free speech? Should she even be allowed to say such things? How does that work?

a capella on June 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Do you have the right to defend yourself?

Chainsaw56 on June 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Generally yes, but not always. (for examples in cases where you provoke the other side, you can’t claim self defense under all circumstances — a rule that makes sense to me)

Also the right might not include every way to defending yourself (for example setting up a dangerous trap to catch thieves, etc.)

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Original intent doesn’t exist? So, if I put a gun to your head, pull the trigger, it misfires, I can claim I was just joking around right?

Geez

HoustonRight on June 30, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Filibuster Proof 2009

dcwvu on June 30, 2009 at 4:17 PM

“It also struck down the NRA”

I must have been asleep when that happened? First off, I did not know that the NRA had been congressionally approved to begin with so how would the NRA have been struck down?

Got references to news articles?

NTxOkie on June 30, 2009 at 4:18 PM

That the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous certainly made it harder for Coleman to hang in there, as that would have been seen by most Minnesotans as just a waste of time.

starfleet_dude on June 30, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Damn you Coleman. This election was blatently stolen from you. Should have fought all the way to SCOTUS. Please don’t bother running for any other office, you don’t deserve another.

Rogue on June 30, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Filibuster Proof 2009

dcwvu on June 30, 2009 at 4:17 PM

“[A]bsolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Edmond Burke

newton on June 30, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Original intent doesn’t exist? So, if I put a gun to your head, pull the trigger, it misfires, I can claim I was just joking around right?

Geez

HoustonRight on June 30, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Funny you mention that, but under some circumstances, yes…

There is a question along those lines that I think on the multistate bar exam. (a case where someone thinks a gun is a prop but where the gun is replaced by a real gun, but the person doesn’t realize that, shoots someone, what is the crime…)

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 4:19 PM

I can’t wait for Bill O’Reilly to say “Senator Al Franken”. He might pop a vessel as he strains to get the words out… ;p

starfleet_dude on June 30, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Between Al and Plugs Biden, the late night comedians can’t whine about lack of material. How soon do you think Al will host SNL?

a capella on June 30, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Iran has nothing on this poor sick Republic.

rplat on June 30, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Generally yes, but not always. (for examples in cases where you provoke the other side, you can’t claim self defense under all circumstances — a rule that makes sense to me)
Also the right might not include every way to defending yourself (for example setting up a dangerous trap to catch thieves, etc.)
mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Okay, then shouldn’t that right be independent of physical strength?

Chainsaw56 on June 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM

Filibuster Proof 2009
dcwvu on June 30, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Yep, and ain’t it grand? Full control, full ownership and an economy heading south. *hehehehehe*

I’m taking bets on the over/under for amount of time it takes for Ogabe and the ‘rats to stop blaming Bush; we start at two years from today.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Okay, then shouldn’t that right be independent of physical strength?

Chainsaw56 on June 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM

Not sure what you mean.

Like say the government providing a free gun to everyone to ensure an equal opportunity at protection?

mycowardice on June 30, 2009 at 4:23 PM

One Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins vote away from Crap and Trade in the Senate! Thank you, Minnesota!

SouthernGent on June 30, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6