MN-Sen: Republicans ditch "strict constructionism"

[Joanne98]

by kos

Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 07:15:04 AM PST

If you wanted more evidence at the skin-deep adherence to it's so-called "core values", watch the Minnesota Republican Party suddenly decide it wants activist judges, rather than strict constructionists.

Coleman lawyer James Langdon said that the Franken team "would have you sit in a vacuum, strictly interpreting a statute," without taking into account the facts that have come into the court and shown just how complicated this all is. He also said that the circumstances of this case were "creating penumbras" around the written law.

"Penumbras"? The Supreme Court found a right to privacy in Grisswold v. Connecticut by findind that...

specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance

Of course, that sentence has been mocked and attacked by the Right (especially among the anti-abortion crowd) as judicial overreach. In fact, it's exhibit A in their attacks on "activist judges" who should instead strictly interpret the law, rather than create it. Yet here is a Republican leaning on that same language to try and get the court to rewrite state law. Call the Federalist Society, STAT!

Unfortunately for Norm Coleman and his team, the judges don't seem too receptive to his demands that they create entirely new law in contravention to established and unambiguous state law.

One exchange between Langdon and Judge Denise Reilly showed the judges seem to be weighing whether state law would allow them to undertake the sweeping reconsideration of rejected ballots sought by Coleman.

After mounting his argument, Langdon commented: "I sense you're not buying it, Judge Reilly."

She responded: "My concern is that the Legislature passed a statute, and I took an oath to uphold that law."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/13/10152/7936/843/696829