|
|
| Re: Minnesota (400005) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (400240) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Tue Jan 6 03:06:39 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 6 03:02:06 2009. Yeah, what's with Minnesota anyway?I'm still waiting for Frostbite Falls' favorite son to run for office there.... |
|
|
| (400246) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 6 03:14:26 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by Mitch45 on Tue Jan 6 03:06:39 2009. Sorry you missed the news ...
|
|
|
| (400262) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 6 03:34:29 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 6 03:14:26 2009. haha |
|
|
| (400280) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 6 05:20:14 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. Back in November 2000, I wondered what it would be like were the shoe on the other foot. Now I know :Dyour pal, Fred |
|
|
| (400318) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Tue Jan 6 08:07:00 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 6 03:14:26 2009. Classic stuff! LOL.But I doubt the veracity of the article - its the Times after all... |
|
|
| (400323) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Jan 6 09:16:19 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 6 00:30:06 2009. Apparently in Minnesota the issue is somewhat different in that they people operating the polls are supposed to make a copy of any ballot that is "damaged" and then mark it "DUPLICATE". The thinking is that many of the poll workers didn't stamp things as "DUPLICATE" so that when it came time to do the recount they couldn't tell which were the duplicates and which were the originals. So they counted both. |
|
|
| (400325) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 6 09:58:15 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Tue Jan 6 09:16:19 2009. The thinking is that many of the poll workers didn't stamp things as "DUPLICATE" so that when it came time to do the recount they couldn't tell which were the duplicates and which were the originals. So they counted both.It's not a good system, even if they had stamped all duplicates. The problem lies not in stamping duplicates but in marking "damaged" ballots. So long as they are not properly segregated there's always the possibility of duplicate counting. Moreover, unless there's a clear correspondence between "damaged" and "duplicate" ballots, there's always a source for confusion. Each original ballot should have had a unique serial number on it. Duplicates for the damaged ballots should have copied that serial number. Then on a recount, a check is made that no serial number occurs more than once. Similarly, a check is made to make sure that all the serial numbers are accounted for, so as to avoid the possibility of "misplaced" ballots. |
|
|
| (400326) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jan 6 10:03:22 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 6 02:56:39 2009. Where do you get 60? Republicans will have 41---unless you're implying that either a Republican will cross sides, or the filibuster rule will be further weakened. |
|
|
| (400331) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jan 6 10:46:34 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. A huge part of the problem is that our election system is just not a good enough measuring device in very tight races. I believe that reform should start there.It's amazing how we can measure certain values with great accuracy and precision. But not who voted for who. |
|
|
| (400336) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Jan 6 11:25:59 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 6 09:58:15 2009. I'm just left wondering how ballots become "damaged" in the first place... |
|
|
| (400365) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 6 13:59:11 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Tue Jan 6 11:25:59 2009. I'd assume "damaged" is a euphemism for being misread by the mark sense equipment. That could mean anything from a coffee stain to the ballot being shredded by the mark sense reader. |
|
|
| (400399) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 15:52:37 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 6 00:30:06 2009. Wouldn't this system be simpler?
|
|
|
| (400407) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jan 6 16:27:04 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by Grand concourse on Tue Jan 6 02:52:56 2009. fuck, senator Franken?You said that as if Franken were an abbreviation. |
|
|
| (400443) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 6 19:17:02 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by Mitch45 on Tue Jan 6 08:07:00 2009. Might be something to it though ... saw the reruns over the weekend and Bullwinkle was nowhere to be found ...
|
|
|
| (400456) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R143 on Tue Jan 6 19:31:22 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. Unbelievable. |
|
|
| (400461) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jan 6 19:47:11 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by R143 on Tue Jan 6 19:31:22 2009. How is it? In Minnesota, all of the key decisions have been made by Republican judges; Franken is a Democrat. |
|
|
| (400536) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Tue Jan 6 21:47:42 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 20:12:25 2009. What is NOT at all surprising is how the process of "All the Votes must be counted" (RS: Stealing in MN and in an Article I did on Early Voting I coined a term "Late-Voting" where Post-Election votes would magically appear [now prophetic, just didn't know it would relate to this race] which was seen in Gary IN where polls were kept open late while returns pile in from other Districts ACORN is then able to drum up more needed Dead Folk to cast ballots to try and offset votes from the rest of the State) whether valid/legal or not is the mantra while a Liberal is behind and there "must be closure" when there are calls to "ensure ALL LEGAL/VALID VOTES ARE COUNTED and counted only ONCE" the MSM and the US Senate (RS: Reid quick to try to seat Franken while barring Burris at the door on technicality).... The LAW clearly allows for Coleman to register a Challenge to the Election via the Courts (Officially Contest the Election) with 7 days to do so before the MN SOS can "Certify" the Election.... The MN Courts have NOT excluded the Coleman arguments but rejected his "STANDING" since the Election recount had not yet concluded!!! |
|
|
| (400539) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 6 21:55:02 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by JLenard on Tue Jan 6 21:47:42 2009. I wondered in 2000 what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. Would the GOP stand down like they recommended Al Gore do so often back then or would they also fight to the finish for recount after recount?Now I know. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (400543) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jan 6 22:01:31 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by JLenard on Tue Jan 6 21:47:42 2009. Then why didn't Indiana's Republican governor do anything about it? The blame starts with Mitch Daniels---NOT officials in Gary. |
|
|
| (400556) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Tue Jan 6 22:28:17 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 6 03:02:06 2009. Ventura is more 'sane' than Franken. It's no wonder his Air [anti]America show tanked. |
|
|
| (400593) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jan 7 08:10:11 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 6 21:55:02 2009. Heh. Damned LIBERAL! Mazel! :) |
|
|
| (400613) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Jan 7 09:46:07 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jan 6 22:01:31 2009. Then why didn't Indiana's Republican governor do anything about it? The blame starts with Mitch Daniels---NOT officials in Gary.??? If the officials in Gary committed fraud, then the blame starts with them. What kind of twisted logic are they teaching you? |
|
|
| (400623) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 10:50:17 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Wed Jan 7 09:46:07 2009. Mitch Daniels or the Secretary of State could simply have held off on certifying results until those were decided, citing fraud...not that it would have produced McCain as POTUS. |
|
|
| (400639) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Jan 7 13:26:03 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 10:50:17 2009. Indeed, but the blame starts with those that committed the fraud. |
|
|
| (400642) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 13:32:36 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 6 21:55:02 2009. I wondered in 2000 what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. Would the GOP stand down like they recommended Al Gore do so often back then or would they also fight to the finish for recount after recount?Now I know. I don't know about anyone else, but I thought in 2000 that Gore's court challenge should not have been halted by the Supreme Court. Similarly, I feel now that Coleman has the right to continue to use the courts for redress as long as they will allow him to. But of course Franken can use Bush v Gore as an argument for the courts cutting off Coleman's right to redress. |
|
|
| (400663) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 7 14:49:51 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 20:12:25 2009. 1,713 votes were added in the recount. Those added votes broke 63/37 in favor of Franken. How statistically unlikely is it that the added votes would have a breakdown so skewed from the overall total without political meddling?In order to answer that question, you would have to first determine the variability of individual precincts. If the overall 50/50 split were replicated in each of the election precincts, then that finding is very unlikely. However, if the overall 50/50 split were obtained by alternating precincts with 63/37 with one precinct going for Coleman and the next for Franken etc., then the result is quite likely. |
|
|
| (400668) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jan 7 15:18:09 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 7 14:49:51 2009. The improperly rejected Absentee votes were overwhelmingly from Franken strongholds. |
|
|
| (400675) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jan 7 15:41:31 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by R30A on Wed Jan 7 15:18:09 2009. Are you doing counting in Minnesota? |
|
|
| (400676) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jan 7 15:42:10 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by R30A on Mon Jan 5 18:02:01 2009. No such events actually occurredThen nothing happened in 2000 either. |
|
|
|
| (400679) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 15:55:52 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by R30A on Wed Jan 7 15:18:09 2009. were they "really" improperly rejected or just deemed that after the fact that those Districts discovered they were needed to push Franken over the top and therefore "re-defined as improperly rejected" in order to provide the required "Late-Voting" (coined that term here: "Early Voting" and "Reform" NOT "Change" before the Election, didn't realize it would be happening so soon) We will not know the full answer to that until Coleman's official "Contest" of the Election and proper standing in Filing Suit will allow/force the cases be heard (not just dismissed away w/o full hearing)....related: Dem's ignore Law, we pay -/- MSM Election Spin/Narrative, to influence Votes rather than just report on election -/- Can we afford Obama $URRENDER doctrine? -/- Vote Psychology (Bandwagon, Bradley, etc) effect -/- the Blagojevich fiasco (Pay-to-play, Burris, Law/Constitution, Fundraising, more...) |
|
|
| (400682) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 16:02:04 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 15:48:18 2009. Ah, it's great to see another staunch conservative on this board. The existing ones were getting too predictable. |
|
|
| (400684) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 16:54:15 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 16:02:04 2009. Well, there are some "dumb" Republicans that know nothing but what talking-points they can steal and can be as bad as those deep into the JackAzz logo party Koolaid punchbowl.... Right is Right, and "proper and sound" (rooted in Facts) arguments matter!Many people in non-Midwestern States have not seen this degree of battles that ACORN plants throughout all levels of Government have brought to battle-ground States (IL, MN, OH, MI, PA, IN, etc...) for years.... They have NO CLUE the degree of corruption in Chicago and/or Detroit and how it has never really subsided, they just got better PR (with many Liberals in MSM covering for them at every turn) and better at keeping/hiding their corruption. I've PERSONALLY put my time and money up and run for Office, so I've seen it all from real close up. It isn't just all "THEORY" to/for me! The latest MN bs: Election theft in MN more general stuff here |
|
|
| (400685) | |
Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 17:09:40 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 16:02:04 2009. Like many arguing the Burris thing without root in Fact/Law/Constitution.... He should be barred from Senate UNTIL the IL SOS signs off (or IL courts settle that it is NOT required)... a States' Right concern/issue.... otherwise (or when IL SOS stops putzing around or IL courts rule) Burris MUST be seated as BlahGo has the ONLY authority to make the appointment whether Democrats like it or not (he is THEIR monstrosity, and their own fault it has got to this).... BlahGo Impeachment is another thing, there are legitimate concerns/arguments to be made (see here) regarding the "Fit To Serve" they are trying to invoke to remove him despite any hearings/evidence yet..... Likewise, Conservatives are quick to badger regarding the Finance side Campaign Finance practices (people/politicians will ALWAYS raise funds for others) versus real Quid Pro Quo (see here).....I do expect/suspect that Blagojevich is corrupt and that "border-line" Pay-To-Play has occurred..... Question is whether Fitzgerald has sufficient evidence or this is more Capone on Tax Evasion stuff, Scooter Libby on "misstatements," or real "substance!" Fun to poke holes in Liberal pandering though.... They all want/need him to step aside so that the investigations don't go beyond him and get to the WORSE stench that the rest of them have been engaged in in the Chicagoland Democrat Political amusement Park. |
|
|
| (400686) | |
Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 17:26:41 2009, in response to Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 17:09:40 2009. However...if Reid decides to take his chances with the federal courts to back him up, I see Anthony Kennedy going along for this case, which means a 5-4 ruling declaring Obama's former seat vacant until 2010. |
|
|
| (400687) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 17:27:43 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 15:55:52 2009. The Republican judges who ruled disagreed with you. If you are claiming that they broke the law, then why not take up the issue locally in that state? |
|
|
| (400688) | |
Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 17:32:47 2009, in response to Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 17:26:41 2009. However...if Reid decides to take his chances with the federal courts to back him up, I see Anthony Kennedy going along for this case, which means a 5-4 ruling declaring Obama's former seat vacant until 2010.Burris is going to get seated after he goes through a few more hoops. All the Democrats want him to be seated; they just don't want it to look like they're allowing corruption to win out. Basically, he just needs to demonstrate what everybody already knows - namely that he didn't have any discussions with Blagojevich about paying for the seat. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08burris.html?hp |
|
|
| (400703) | |
Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 18:09:51 2009, in response to Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 17:32:47 2009. Burris HAD donated to BlahGo campaign.... but AGAIN that does NOT necessarily mean a quid pro quo.... that is the question/issue, if Fitzgerald has any real substance.... I don't think Burris is dirty, he is just someone at the end of the line of his career which made him the safe choice and he accepted as he was going/doing NOTHING otherwise.... One of the perfect picks to my conjecture on Who Blagojevich should pick and whyThis is indeed all just Theater by Federal level Democrats to distance themselves from the Blago fiasco.... RELEASE ALL THE TAPES NOW and let us hear who said what and in what context (including Rahm).... Local IL Democrats keep trying to brush this aside ASAP to avoid the stench that surrounds them from being uncovered as part of this if it remains an ongoing investigation and/or story-line.... And now there is the Bill Richardson Pay-To-Play scandal to add..... |
|
|
| (400704) | |
Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 18:11:11 2009, in response to Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 18:09:51 2009. Fitzgerald may be the one who doesn't want the tapes released because he doesn't want his case compromised, and because those tapes are evidence. |
|
|
| (400705) | |
Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 18:15:00 2009, in response to Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 17:32:47 2009. This is NOT Adam Clayton Powell.... The US Senate is going to seat him without ANY appeal to the SCOTUS unless it is brought by Burris (if he is continued to be denied entrance).... Though I would NOT mind it going there, it keeps the Education of the brain-dead public alive regarding the situation and Democrat boondoggles |
|
|
| (400707) | |
Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 18:18:40 2009, in response to Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 18:15:00 2009. I actually see it getting that far.BTW, I also can't see a midterm massacre in 2010 without New York flipping (in the Senate). Everything I'm looking at likely has it coming down to a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1, with the Republicans having to capture the seat which Hilary Clinton holds at the moment to regain Senate control. |
|
|
| (400711) | |
Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 18:20:56 2009, in response to Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 18:15:00 2009. Burris will probably get the federal courts involved...and I could see SCOTUS changing the rules to indicate that someone under indictment may not make an appointment to a federal office until such issues are resolved. |
|
|
| (400713) | |
Re: unlikely Coleman/Franken MN will go to SCOTUS either |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 18:21:52 2009, in response to Re: The BlahGo (my nickname for him) and Burris affair, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 17:32:47 2009. Though it could.... If Franken gets certified by MN, the US Senate (Reid) will be happy to welcome him..... If Coleman gets it, I still doubt the Liberals want to push the "examine returns" clauses they have been touting under the Burris denied entrance (where NO real issue short of in State concern if IL SOS does need to sign off on "appointment" as does to "certify" general Elections).... I don't think the Democrats want to drag that (to deny Coleman if it gets to that) up to SCOTUS where States' Rights (in this matter anyway) would be a clear/easy winner..... If easily proven and rampant fraud (many of us, of course, think there is some fraud going on in MN in this race) can be presented to require Federal intervention the SCOTUS will skirt it and (again) Democrats really don't want this negative focus... They've got a Socialist agenda to attend to.... |
|
|
| (400714) | |
Re: unlikely Coleman/Franken MN will go to SCOTUS either |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 18:24:33 2009, in response to Re: unlikely Coleman/Franken MN will go to SCOTUS either, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 18:21:52 2009. This one I agree with...the buck stops with the Minnesota high court. The only question is...for how much longer? |
|
|
| (400722) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 18:47:30 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 17:27:43 2009. regardless... not surprising that Franken campaign that was so worried about Absentee ballots be counted from heavy Democrat Districts be opened and counted but now counts of the courts to stop the "other" Absentee ballots that would be in Colemans favor go unopened.... The LATE BALLOTING play I talked about has proven effective....People forget.... just because a State has a "Republican" Governor doesn't make it a "Republican" State.... Liberals infect/infest all sectors of Government... it is what they do... it is what they are about... Always for MORE and MORE and MORE expanding Government and that they ensure that Large Government is run by those ingrained Liberals throughout it.... Conservatives do NOT gravitate to Government work/positions (to our own detriment, as demonstrated in this case) because we do NOT view Government as solution, only a form of ENSLAVEMENT of peoples.... It would take 50 years of "Conservative" rule in this country to even begin to root out all the embedded Liberal influence all through Government.... And with Obama getting more Federal Judge appointments unfettered by an Ultra-Liberal House/Senate looking to load Courts with more Liberal Activist Judges to bolster the Liberals forcing Government on anyone/everyone that has been built up by Democrat administrations for more than 60 years.... Bush and Republican run House didn't undo the underlying machine (such a shame so few really understand how government really works). |
|
|
| (400723) | |
Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jan 7 18:50:22 2009, in response to Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 18:20:56 2009. They are going to seat Mr. Burris after he has this State certification lawsuit resolved in IL. Senator Reid doesn't want his dirty laundry to be revealed. |
|
|
| (400724) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 18:51:06 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 18:47:30 2009. The judges, however, ARE mostly Republican. |
|
|
| (400731) | |
Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 19:12:08 2009, in response to Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 18:20:56 2009. I could see SCOTUS changing the rules to indicate that someone under indictment may not make an appointment to a federal office until such issues are resolved.Blagojevich isn't under indictment. |
|
|
| (400733) | |
Re: Court ruled based on "Standing".... Official Contest is written within the MN Law.... |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 19:18:35 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 17:27:43 2009. I believe you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion on how/why the decision was made.... It was a question of appropriate STANDING as I put forth and backed up by this quote " the double-counting argument and the reconsideration of rejected absentee ballots — Coleman's lawyers were told by the Canvassing Board or the Supremes that the appropriate place to have those issues considered was an election contest." (from this MinnPost story: Senate recount: It's unlikely Coleman will win in court). Despite the Headline interjecting the Papers Editors preconceived conclusion (their opinion, as we have and make our arguments) the stories early comment of "... in officially announcing that he would contest the election result, struck the right tone. Having a small mob of supporters cheering and chanting ...." (MOB? Mob implies a negative connotation and implication toward the Coleman campaign in this instance) makes me wonder how much of the Story is "reporting" and how much is the usual MSM attempting to INFLUENCE (Libs don't confine Opinion to the Editorial pages) the story/outcomes (as put forth: here: RS: MSM Election Spin/Narrative, to influence Votes rather than just report on election andhere: RS: Vote Psychology (Bandwagon, Bradley, etc) effect) providing cover and setting up the reasons why MN Courts (depending on the specific jurisdiction, doesn't mean a "Republican" staffed Judges court) could dismiss before holding actual Evidence hearing/presentation.... But AGAIN.... The suits were dismissed based on STANDING and procedure.... Now is AN OFFICIAL ELECTION CONTEST and the appropriate STANDING.... IMO, it will be suspect if it is all dismissed "out-of-hand" without arguments heard and an actual ruling being made - additional appeals will be a certainty! If you have support for your arguments I'd appreciate the opportunity to review it. I do know, however, it is hard to find "TV reports" that have been made.... This MinnPost story was the absolute BEST full reporting of all the issues I've come across yet and it just came out Today!! It is tough, sometimes, to find the information we've based our opinions/arguments on - I know I don't always have the info handy and/or links lying around. |
|
|
| (400737) | |
Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 19:41:15 2009, in response to Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 19:12:08 2009. and the SCOTUS DOES NOT HAVE LEGISTLATIVE AUTHORITY.... There is already enough Liberal Activism via the courts.... They have ZERO ability to do what you just suggested..... This would be up to and should be addressed by each and every State!!!STATES' RIGHTS PLEASE |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||