| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Major Tom
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
here's a prime nugget from minnesota's proceedings yesterday:
| talkingpointsmemo wrote: | Coleman Lawyer To Court: We Don't Want To Un-Count Votes -- But You Have To
By Eric Kleefeld - February 27, 2009, 1:57PM
In addition to this morning's fireworks in the Minnesota courtroom, the court also just heard arguments on a very interesting motion from Team Coleman: That the court must take their ruling from two weeks ago to apply strict standards for letting in new ballots, and apply it retroactively to all the absentee ballots that were let in on Election Night.
The obvious problem here: There is no way to directly subtract votes, because the envelopes and the ballots were de-coupled on Election Night, and there is no way to reunite them.
Coleman lawyer James Langdon suggested a possible remedy -- though he's not advocating this yet -- would be to do a pro-rata reduction. That would be to take the number of invalid ballot envelopes, and proportionately deduct votes from each candidate according to the county or precinct results. Later on, he was even clearer in saying this was the only remedy.
Langdon -- who disliked the strict-standards ruling ever since it came out -- said the campaign didn't really want to do it. "We would still prefer to have the obverse, to have the standard that was applied on Election Night," said Langdon, "which the evidence has demonstrated is a substantial compliance standard, which was applied differently from county to county."
Langdon said this comes down to both Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment, and the basic statutory definition itself: "At the end of the day the court is left with a conundrum as to how it can issue a judgment saying who got the highest number of legally-cast ballots."
Judge Denise Reilly later told Langdon that she couldn't find any previous instance in Minnesota cases of a reduction being performed. Langdon said he had seen one, and could get back to her with the citation.
In short, Team Coleman is playing a legal game of chicken with the judges, trying to get them to reverse that earlier ruling, and to otherwise muddy the waters.
Franken lawyer Marc Elias said that Team Coleman's real goal was to cast doubt on the entire election result and declare that we can't know what really happened, which they had denied earlier in the case.
"If Mr. Langdon believes that this court cannot determine who received the most legally-cast votes, then this court should dismiss his complaints" Elias said, and send the dispute to the United States Senate.
Elias said this new request has no basis in law -- and that it's an out-of-order last-minute surprise request by Coleman. "Pro-rata reduction? Where in the contest statute is pro-rata reduction? Where in their pleadings is pro-rata reduction?" he asked. "Pro-rata reduction on a statewide basis? On a county basis, on a precinct basis, on a sub-precinct basis? Targeted on a cherry-picked basis from their voter file they've used for the rest of their pleadings?"
|
"If Mr. Langdon believes that this court cannot determine who received the most legally-cast votes, then this court should dismiss his complaints" Elias said, and send the dispute to the United States Senate." <-- it would be awesome if the judges suddenly went with this. just flatly agree with coleman's lawyers that they can't make the determination, pack their bags and ship it to the senate. the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mouse
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 15448
Location: under the bed
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
seems like it would kind of knock a hole in this sort of endless suit and counter-suit on close elections - if the court can't really decide, then no point in wasting everyone's time suing.
_________________
aka: neverscared! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Major Tom
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| there's the endless-filibuster-loop in congress, of course, but i'd definitely love to see the that particular chicken brought home, forcibly, to roost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8836
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mouse wrote: | | seems like it would kind of knock a hole in this sort of endless suit and counter-suit on close elections - if the court can't really decide, then no point in wasting everyone's time suing. |
I've probably noted — the GOP is funneling money heavily into the suits against Franken in order to keep him from being seated as long as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Secret
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 5429
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam wrote: | | I've probably noted — the GOP is funneling money heavily into the suits against Franken in order to keep him from being seated as long as possible. |
Yes.
_________________
| rm wrote: | | the grail is patient. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mouse
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 15448
Location: under the bed
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
i'm really interested in finding out if the american people are really as oblivious, ignorant, unthinking and short in the memory as the gop clearly thinks. i guess they are either expecting all of this will be forgotten by 2010....or that the country will have failed so spectacularly that people will actually think that tax cuts are the answer, even though they didn't stop us from getting in this situation.
i'm really hoping that they are wrong, and this sort of rampant obstructionalism is going to get them in the end. 'cause it's really getting old. it's like watching a couple of other people's children throw tantrums, and having to put up with the noise and discomfort, and knowing you can't do anything to make it stop.
_________________
aka: neverscared! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mindslicer
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I've heard that it was due to all the wasteful spending by the Republicans that caused their downfall, and make it absolutely vital for the Democrats now to spend three times as much, double the national debt by the end of Obama's first term, and send Hillary to China to beg for money.
I can't imagine why the GOP wouldn't be fully on board with the plan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr_Moustache
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 9122
Location: The thing in itself that is Will
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Im not a fan of the american economy package either. But then again, im doing a study directly focused on china (well, for at least a few more months) so:
Go Obama!
(You americans just dont get it do you? Loaning does not work wonders. far from it. You got in this mess because you loaned/lended too careless in the first place. Now this. *le sigh*)
_________________
When life gives you lemons, some people make lemonade. I just eat them and make a sour face.
Last edited by Mr_Moustache on Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mindslicer
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr_Moustache wrote: | Im not a fan of the american economy package either. But then again, im doing a study directly focused on china (well, for at least a few more months) so:
Go Obama!
(You americans just dont get it do you? Loaning does not work wonders. far from it. You got in this mess because you loaned/lended to careless in the first place. Now this. *le sigh*) |
But, but...
"Credit is the lifeblood of our economy." ~B. Obama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Secret
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 5429
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A certain amount of credit liquidity is necessary for a modern economy to function. An excess of credit, poorly distributed, can and has lead to a bubble and subsequent bust, but a credit drought can prevent business ventures and exacerbate the effects of downturns. While loans should not be given out haphazardly, they should be given out.
_________________
| rm wrote: | | the grail is patient. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Forlorn Devil
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 828
Location: In his own reality
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Secret wrote: | | A certain amount of credit liquidity is necessary for a modern economy to function. An excess of credit, poorly distributed, can and has lead to a bubble and subsequent bust, but a credit drought can prevent business ventures and exacerbate the effects of downturns. While loans should not be given out haphazardly, they should be given out. |
Correct. Only the dam banks are not handing out loans like they should be. Without loans people can't start businesses, buy houses, update their equipment to increase productivity. Which helps bring the economy up and raise housing prices and investments in business. Bankers just can't be stupid about who they give their money out to, but that also have to accept a certain amount of risk.
Loans are the oil that lubes the engine of our economy. Only now the oil is dirty and needs to be changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gally912
Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 661
Location: Afghandi-land. Like candy-land, only not as nice.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mindslicer wrote: | Actually, I've heard that it was due to all the wasteful spending by the Republicans that caused their downfall, and make it absolutely vital for the Democrats now to spend three times as much, double the national debt by the end of Obama's first term, and send Hillary to China to beg for money.
I can't imagine why the GOP wouldn't be fully on board with the plan. |
2005 Inaugural Ball headlines:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"
2009 Inaugural Ball headlines:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $170 million"
"Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"
How do I get on these silly little email lists?
How much has the government spent, total, anyways? There's the (in billions) 800 stimulus bill, 400 omnibus bill, 3600 budget (3.6 trillion), then the auto/bank loans. What did I miss?
_________________
Things are seldom as they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mindslicer
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gally912 wrote: | | How much has the government spent, total, anyways? |
When compared to the reckless spending of the last eight years -- a metric shitload.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dro
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3830
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a budget comparison:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Uncle Taylorbell
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3191
Location: Northern England
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dro wrote: | Here is a budget comparison:
|
I CAN READ GRAPHS!
International assistance programmes have fallen in funding during a period of increased defense spending? Hmmm. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of defense spending itself. Which of the two catagories does the rebuilding of Iraq fall into? Is that 'International assistance' funded from defense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
