|
|
| Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota (400005) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (400739) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 19:47:11 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jan 7 18:51:06 2009. appointed when and by whom? Which court(s)? as when this is done there may be several courts, appeal courts, MN SC, involved... which ones are you convinced are "Republican" controlled? You considering Ventura appointments Republican?!?!Sounds to me like Republican Governor = assumption about courts though... you may be right.... but I'm just saying.... Liberal activist judges don't leave benches to be replaced unless they are forced out one way or another.... Even accepting your contention... Republican does NOT equal Conservative and Constitutionally and/or Law oriented! |
|
|
| (400742) | |
Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 19:59:36 2009, in response to Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 19:41:15 2009. "They have ZERO ability to do what you just suggested"Um, you're getting your posters mixed up. I didn't suggest that SCOTUS do anything. |
|
|
| (400748) | |
Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 20:22:57 2009, in response to Re: I disagree, not a SCOTUS issue... they won't intervene, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 19:59:36 2009. beg your pardon... yep... I reacted to the quote you put in for you to add your response....Correct... agreed.... BlahGo isn't indicted yet... nor Impeached (and not likely anytime soon if done LAWFULLY, they may just do a lynch/hatchet job to force him out - cannot allow "impeachment" to become the Parliament [no confidence vote] move to remove unpopular Governors).... Until such time as Fitzgerald has a legitimate case built against BlahGo, he is and should remain IL Governor unless the people of IL get a recall vote! |
|
|
| (400758) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 21:11:31 2009, in response to State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 15:50:36 2009. 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! This post with actual working cross-reference links here: Sub-Chat 400733 |
|
|
| (400767) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jan 7 21:47:59 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 19:47:11 2009. Republican does NOT equal Conservative and Constitutionally and/or Law orientedBest of luck convincing some of the hardcore thinkers of that fact. |
|
|
| (400858) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 8 03:23:52 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jan 6 10:03:22 2009. Where do you get 60? Republicans will have 41---unless you're implying that either a Republican will cross sides,Sen. Arlen Specter supports EFCA. He already voted for cloture last year but it came up short. No Democrats defected. |
|
|
| (400875) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 8 04:29:25 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. Each original ballot should have had a unique serial number on it.That would undermine the secrecy of the ballot. |
|
|
| (400878) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 8 04:37:59 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 8 04:29:25 2009. I kinda got a kick out of John Stewart's (the only MSM I bother with anymore) comments yesterday ... "and Minnesota is supposed to be one of those 'smart states' that doesn't need to wear a helmet." :) |
|
|
| (400900) | |
Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 8 06:00:38 2009, in response to Re: State Supreme Court rules against Coleman Re: Minnesota, posted by JLenard on Wed Jan 7 19:47:11 2009. Republican does NOT equal Conservative and Constitutionally and/or Law oriented!The last eight years made that perfectly clear. |
|
|
| (400913) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 8 10:00:33 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 8 03:23:52 2009. Pryor defected since then. |
|
|
| (400976) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jan 8 15:43:43 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 6 03:02:06 2009. After Norm Coleman, it is REALLY a step in a saner direction. There is a reason Coleman lost to both Franken and Ventura. |
|
|
| (400987) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 8 17:28:09 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by Grand concourse on Tue Jan 6 22:28:17 2009. Jesse ain't wired right either, but yeah ... somehow congress *deserves* Franken. :) |
|
|
| (400988) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 8 17:29:30 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by R30A on Thu Jan 8 15:43:43 2009. Yeah, read some of Coleman's (ahem) "work" ... A moose from Minnesota I always got, but thanks to Coleman I understand now why Bullwinkle's partner was a squirrel. :) |
|
|
| (401163) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Jan 9 01:24:21 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jan 8 10:00:33 2009. Will he vote for cloture though? He can always vote gainst the bill itself. It will still have a solid majority without him. |
|
|
| (401199) | |
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jan 9 09:40:43 2009, in response to Re: Minnesota, posted by SMAZ on Fri Jan 9 01:24:21 2009. I'm not sure that he would vote for cloture, but the 60 to proceed on it are not as solid as they were when the bill was going nowhere, let me put it that way....Just as Obama is going to find out about the Senate Democrats - he already is - that they're each prima donnas who have trouble uniting to agree on which day of the week it is, let alone agreeing on even the minuscule amount of stimulus he is putting forward. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||