Minnesota Board Votes Against Al Franken, In Favor of More of That Delicious Stuffing Please
I think I know what embattled Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman will be listing as a blessing around the Thanksgiving table tomorrow afternoon…
Minnesota's Canvassing Board voted unanimously to reject Franken's request to include thousands of absentee ballots that are not included in the recount in the Minnesota senate race between the Democratic challenger and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.
Aha! So the Republicans were right. Franken's claim that the 12,000 absentee rejected ballots needed to be counted was without merit…
The Canvassing Board, which oversees the recount, stressed during a hearing today, that they weren't rejecting the merits made by Franken's attorneys.
So, wait a minute. Franken's argument does have merit? But they're throwing them out anyway? What's going on here?
The panel also indicated that the fight over the exclusion of the absentee ballots from the recount will most likely land in court.
Oh, I see. The Canvassing Board wanted to start their holiday weekend early. I can understand that. 'Cause, you know, nothing slows down the digestion of fistfuls of food in your stomach more so than a lingering democratic quandary.
Best to just kick that on to someone else. They can handle it after everyone takes a nap.
RSS
fucken franklen quack and his baggle eating goones im getin out alive and withe probible falce clames that he dosent know whats going on up at the fucken see'n a fucken ridge.
Bearness,
I agree with you "on the merits." This should be used as a political tool with regard to the military. However, the ruling at the "canvassing board" level may not be disturbed in a higher tribunal because of precedent (Bush v. Gore). This creates a Hobson's choice. Despite a Republican controlled canvassing board, once these absentee ballots are opened, most will clearly express the true intent of the voter making it difficult for the board to toss it. If the numbers panned out for Franken (which is why they are fighting it) that would make Coleman's argument for them not to count unsavory as it flies in the face of reasonability and fairness. I do not know when Minnesota's date for certification is. Sound familiar? I would hope a court will rule on the merits with regard to counting these ballots. Also, I'm not sure why they aren't being counted. Were they postmarked late? Did they arrive late? Were they lost for a bit? It's strange. The law, in the past, was construed in favor of the voter (voting is a fundamental right). Since Bush v. Gore, while it could be argued that is a one-time decision and not really sound precedent, there have been decisions which disenfranchise people using that case as rationale. But, for political purposes you are 100% right. Law and politics… two different things.
Here are some pretty good definitions I always liked from Ambros Bierce's, "The Devil's Dictionary."
"LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.
POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."
Get Frankin that tall skinny mirror. You may need to widen the top a little for his head.
Bryan http:www.usefulopinions.blogspot.com
Get Frankin that tall skinny mirror. You may need to widen the top a little for his head.
Bryan http://www.usefulopinions.blogspot.com
I don't disagree with your legal analysis. And for the Board to punt it to a court makes sense for them because it will probably end up in court anyway.
My point is that Franken's PR team, MoveOn.org, and any other "liberal" organization needs to shove this tactic by Colman and his Republican associates in the faces of every reporter and military service person they can get their hands on. Most absentee ballots are from military personnel. Point out that Republicans are sending them to war and then disenfranchising them as a "thanks" for their service.
I hate to get all legal up in yo' digestive tract, but, I will try to provide the always hysterical analysis of what a ruling is without basing it "on the merits." Before a case (any case) can proceed certain threshold requirements need to be met. For example, jurisdiction, venue, standing, ripeness, mootness, "advisory opinions," or "the political question doctrine" are some of the threshold considerations a court or canvassing board would look at before reaching "the merits" or meat and potatoes of an issue. In part, these are called issues of justiciability. It's the stuff a litigant must bring to court before she or he can play ball. In this case (based on the CNN link), the canvassing board said they did not have "authority" to determine whether to count the absentee ballots. "Authority" could very well refer to jurisdiction ("subject matter" jurisdiction here) or some power not statutorily provided. In this case, the canvassing board is not reaching the crux of Franken's argument (that the absentee ballots ought be counted) because they claim not to have the power to decide whether those ballots should be counted or not. Rather, they only have the power to count the ballots that are questioned which are valid (and placed before them — which is a tautology) and not disqualified ab initio (from the onset; sorry for Latin too). Basically, they are punting to a forum of competent jurisdiction (a court). The real problem will arise if and when the court says it does not have jurisdiction (which is possible). Remember Bush v. Gore.
For example, let's say you smoke a joint in Amsterdam and some rogue Assistant United States Attorney tries to prosecute you in NYC for that conduct. No. The court will not even reach "the merits" of the case (whether you smoked a doob or not) because of venue and jurisdiction issues and general principles of dickheadedness. Here, the canvassing board probably could have reached a different decision, but punted to avoid scrutiny and avoid party wrath. Probably their reasoning (if I had to guess) is pretextual or a smokescreen masking their true intent — to screw Franklin.
For a horrific discussion on jurisdiction and all things hysterical with regard to law, check out Wikipedia. Sorry for that dreadful analysis and obamamamma manifesto, but, I hope that explained what "on the merits" means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction
EVERYONE IN THE MILITARY PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS. You are fighting and dying for your country. And these are YOUR absentee ballots that REPUBLICANS are tying to make sure DO NOT get recounted. Do you really want to keep loving the Republicans?
I'm sorry. But some things just aren't funny.