How many of the 400 would Coleman need to win? I come up with 313?

How many times does this guy have to be told "you lost"? Yes, the public picked someone other then you, get over it. I know that republicans like to use stalling tactics but this is ridiculous. At some point you can't win anymore. The arrogance of the right in thinking that they are entitled to victories has gotten out of hand. Yes, the republican revolution is over. Get over it, the rest of the country already has.

Are you freaking kidding me? It's March 31st and we are still being asked to wait longer for the outcome of this election. If this was Franken dragging this out we'd be hearing non-stop about how he's a sore loser and should just step aside but since it's a hypocritical Republican this thing can drag on forever. You end your post noting that Coleman may appeal yet again if he loses, demonstrating that the Republican party is without question the party of no, the party of zero and the party without shame or a clue!

I watched much of the trial online at The Uptake. The three judge panel seemed to be giving Coleman as many breaks as possible, even though he didn't have much of a case. My belief is that they were being as cautious as possible and were trying to give Coleman every chance possible to prove his case. With that in mind, I am wondering if this ruling isn't just giving Coleman one last chance to withdraw his challenge to the recount results before they slam the door in his face and make it very difficult to win any appeals.

313 is what I came up with as well.

Because Franken is supposed to just "step aside for the good of Minnesota and the Country" and the we are just supposed to "move on". Just like with that Al Gore guy (who got the most votes).

It's the Republican way and it's worked in the past.

Is there something in MN voting law that prohibits a speedy resolution to this? I'm not an expert in law and don't know the intricacies of the state law there but this seems excessive. Can anyone explain? Why can a state disenfranchise so many voters for so long? I would have expected this to be resolved when Congress convened. How can they justify no representation to Minnesota voters like this?

The longer the Republicans can keep another Democratic Senator from being seated the harder it will be for the Democrats to invoke cloture.

Coleman knows he won't win, he just wants to keep Franken out of the Senate for as long as possible.

(ps. Make them actually filibuster!)

Having followed much of this controversy over at TPM, it appears that the panel has been incredibly deliberate as to limit Coleman's chances at an appeal, which is why this thing has taken so long -- they reviewed nearly 20,000 pages worth of filings. But, being no legal expert, how can Coleman appeal this thing? Don't you need some sort of legal basis to do that? I mean this isn't Calvin Ball. Does Coleman have that ground to stand on? Anyone?

I'll try to explain it. The right to contest an election in court assumed much more straightforward issues, not the endless fighting expedition Coleman embarked on. Since the election contest court is subordinate to the state supreme court, the losing candidate has a right to appeal. The interesting part comes after that, because it's disputed whether certification of election comes after the state legal process is done, or when the whole legal process is done, meaning certification wold have to wait until the federal courts were done, if Coleman chose to take it there, and maybe even after that he could appeal to the Senate. Basically, Minnesota enshrined in law procedures determined in an equally close recount in the 1962 governor election, but the candidates didn't stall. In fact, even with having to work out procedures that were already law this time, they finished right about this time, when the losing incumbent decided to stop the appeals.

Like another commenter mentioned, the prevailing theory on the Franken side is the court gave Coleman's weak case maximum leeway to reduce the grounds for appeal. He clearly intends to appeal anyway, based on a claim of equal protection violation because counties varied in how well they followed absentee procedures. My two cents, the mistakes favored Coleman, and that alone might be enough for a court to reject his claim. Moreover, though mistakes varied, unlike Florida 2000, there was only one set of procedures for the whole state, so the Bush v. Gore claim doesn't apply.

In the race for Senator Gillibrand's House seat in New York, the nutcase right is already suggesting that Democrats are trying to pull a "Franken" there, where their guy, Tedisco, is 65 votes behind with 10,000 absentees to be counted.

The coup d'etat in 2000 has been wiped clean from our collective memory, it seems, and Coleman's people are no doubt going to take the Minnesota war to the same clowns who rendered their party's fraudulent "victory" back then, with Roberts subbing in for O'Connor.

Will they once again stand the Constitution on its head?

Coleman's crybaby antics won't be forgotten in future elections. Let him make as big a mess as he wants -- he'll only guarantee that Minnesotans send senators to the Democratic side of the aisle for a long time.

I'd love to know what teh source of the money for Coleman's lawyers is. Sure, the Repub's have a lot of well-heeled backers, but this is getting ridiculous.

Did I just say "is getting"?

Denying the Senate a 59th and very liberal Democrat until after the budget and the rest of Obama's major first-year legislation has been voted on guarantees the right will get more of what it wants. In a perverse way, donating to Coleman's legal defense fund is more effective than donating to his campaign.

doing all this non-stop appealing and stalling, the Republicans would have bussed in "protesters" from out of state and been on cable news 24/7 screeching that ending this is the only "patriotic" thing to do. Some people may have forgotten 2000, I never will. Their hypocrisy (and stupidity) knows no bounds.