. . . I pretty much thought we all agreed that this was direction being taken. Coleman will take this all the way to the Supreme Court if they'll here it. It will be fall before Franken is seated.

Nothing new here. He has been making hints ever since the recount went against him that he might take it federal. At this point he really has to do that or concede. His case for the Minnesota Supreme Court is very weak.

"it’s called equal protection and due process"

it's called obstructionism and despair.

Doesn't Norm know that the GOP believes all states are sovereign over the federal government? What good would going to the US Supreme Court do since Minnesota does not have to follow federal law anyway, according to the GOP!

This is about the Republican Party wanting to keep Al Franken, and the 59th vote that accompanies him, out of the Senate for as long as possible.

It's not about Coleman, or the best interests of the people of Minnesota, whom Coleman clearly couldn't give a damn about.

It's about the Republican Party. Because with Republicans, it's always party first.

"It's about the Constitution and equal protection..." Since when has Norm or the GOP, cared about equal protection. They hated it until it allowed them to grab power in 2000. It must be tough sitting there repeating such a weak argument as if it's devinely inspired.

Norm, you have a losing hand. 63% of US in Minnesota are ready for you to do the right thing, and concede. Pawlenty's got to getting worried. I wonder if he's got your back for the Federal case?

ps. No one's buying your sudden religousity either.

It's completely appropriate to make arguments based on "equal protection and due process" in state court; the U.S. Constitution applies in state court too. In fact, if you don't raise a constitutional issue in state court, you are generally barred from raising it on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or in a collateral proceeding in a federal district court.

All of this is not to say that Coleman won't go federal (I'm personally quite sure he'll delay as long as he can). But I doubt he will start raising brand new consitutional issues once he gets to federal court.

Ummm, actually, no. Equal Protection and Due Process under the U.S. Constitution are, in fact, arguments that one can and must make in state court and, in particular, a state supreme court appeal in this case. Indeed, if he fails to make those arguments before the Minnesota Supreme Court, the already long odds that the U.S. Supreme Court would ever grant certiorari would drop to zero.

It was reported today that former Senator Coleman's house in St Paul was egged last night. People are getting more than fed up and rightfully so.

Dear Norm,

Go to _____, go directly to _____. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Now of course you can substitute the word from the original Monopoly card if you'd like, but there was another form those of us in the upper midwest often used when we were angry or frustrated with our friends - always said a bit tongue in cheek of course, but I suspect both might apply to you AT THE SAME TIME!

In the meantime... Put down that Federal Appeal and back...away...slowly...

WE WANT OUR SECOND SENATOR!

(Oh, and by the way, nice job egging your own door then blaming a "kid on a bicycle." You really got my sympathy with that one!).

have to take the case? I assume they could/would/should decline to hear it. (Can they issue a preemptive ruling?)

I also think Pawlenty should certify the results if the MN Supremes rule against Coleman.

Presumably, the case would start in federal district court, then to the court of appeals, and then the Supreme Court (which would not have to hear the case). This would appear to be all about delaying the seating of Franken. Equal protection and due process claims in this context are a real hail Mary pass. Not what you'd rely on if you had any colorable statutory claim.

The route would probably have to be to take the federal constitutional claims to the state supreme court, and then appeal to the SCOTUS, which would definitely not have to take the case.

I'm no sure what he means by equal protection or due process, but it sounds to me like what Norm Coleman is really trying to do is set aside the will of the people of his state. He lost that election. He's lost every court case so far. The only thing that could concievibly save him is another partizan ruling to install another unelected Republican in office by the SCOTUS. And even John Roberts' Republican kangaroo court has got to know that you can't do something like that twice in one generation and still have anyone believe the US is still ruled by law.

Article I section 5 of the Constitution starts:

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

I'm not so sure that they'd feel they have jurisdiction once the state certifies the election and I'm really sure that they wouldn't risk being told that they were irrelevant by the Senate.

I wonder who showed it to him? And, after all those years in the Senate where he aggressively worked towards eliminating many of its protections, it's interesting how he's suddenly decided the Constitution is, you know, a good thing.

Federal courts will either kick it upstairs or rule against him.

Coleman WILL BE appointed Senator by the Supreme Court of the US. Awesome. We need to stop having elections.

Ben Ginsberg, Coleman's top election lawyer, was the legal mind who dreamed up Bush's equal protection scam, er, claim in the infamous 2000 Bush v Gore fiasco. I've no doubt that his thinking now is "Well, 'equal protection' worked before; the high court is tilted even more to our side; why not again?"

At the time he penned the notorious 2000 ruling, Antonin Scalia -- recognizing the dearth of sound legal reasoning behind his judicial coup -- did his best to preempt anyone else from running a similar con game by inserting a clause barring use of the case as "precedent" in any other suit. So much for that little fig leaf . . .