Any thoughts on how SCOTUS is going to rule on Franken/Coleman?

[Perky]

I suspect that they are going to say that the state gets to decide but that the enforcemnt of rules across counties has to be equal.

ANd coleman can not win on that basis,

THe problem is that that it gets to SCOTUS after the term ends and before Souter's replacement joins them so its either wait for Fall or risk a tie?

[MNDemNY]

1. I do not think it will get to SCOTUS.

[rove karl rove]

12. neither do I

it would take even more months to reach that level if it ever dies.

[Sanity Claws]

2. They will decline hearing it

[NYC_SKP]

3. +1 n/t

[regnaD kciN]

20. While it seems logical...

...I remember being certain about the same thing with Bush v. Gore, too. :scared:

[Hippo_Tron]

30. That was a presidential election, this is a senate election

I honestly don't think they will touch this one.

[AlinPA]

4. 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of Coleman. Republicans need that seat badly and no

way will they decline the case.

[LynneSin]

7. It' can't be 6-3. Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens are all on our team

It's going to come down to 5-4 and all hinge one whether Kennedy goes with the law or the goons that day.

He's the wild card.

[cali]

13. they'll almost certainly decline to hear it.

and no fucking way would it be 6-3 if they did hear it.

[Zen Democrat]

5. This will NEVER get to the SCOTUS. Never. n/t

[AlinPA]

6. Why would the republicans (SC included) pass up a chance to seat one of theirs?

[LynneSin]

8. They said that about Bush v. Gore

:eyes:

[cali]

14. uh, very few people said that.

[Doctor_J]

26. did you sleep for a month straight after election day 2000?

that's the only reason I can think of that someone would say such a ridiculous thing

[MurrayDelph]

9. I'd like to think that after the LAST time

the Democrats would not let the Supreme crooks get away with stealing another election.

[regnaD kciN]

21. How could we stop it...?

As everyone should know from 2000, there's no place you can go to appeal a SCOTUS decision.

[Doctor_J]

25. Beating Delay's storm troopers bloody would have probably helped

[RomanHoliday]

10. In this case, Franken is clearly ahead on votes after a million recounts.

They would have to completely ignore reality to rule Coleman the winner. With Bush v. Gore, it was about whether to continue the recount or not-- it still doesn't make sense but they could at least argue it in some way. There's absolutely no argument for declaring the loser the winner after months of recounting votes.

[yellowcanine]

11. If they follow the Constitution, they will decline to hear it. They have no jurisdiction.

[backscatter712]

15. My bet is they won't hear it.

They'd have to go through huge amounts of gymnastics to rule in favor of Coleman, and given the airtight nature of Franken's case, the lead in votes he has, and the utter incompetence of the Coleman team, I don't think they'll stick their neck out for this.

My bet is that Minnesota's Supreme Court rules for Franken in early June, issues the writ of mandamus to Pawlenty, he folds and issues the certificate and Franken takes his seat. Coleman might try appealing to federal courts, but won't get anywhere.

[Orangepeel]

16. Didn't Souter say he'd stay until there was a replacement?

maybe I'm misremembering.

[Ocracoker16]

17. I don't think so

He is retiring when the Court goes to summer recess. Sandra Day O'Connor stayed on until she was replaced.

[Phx_Dem]

19. Yes, he did say that. n/t

[Thrill]

18. I can't see them taking this case.

[PBS Poll-435]

22. Won't grant Writ.

nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. Hopefully, SCOTUS won't even touch it.

And even if they do, how the hell are any of them going to justify declaring Coleman- loser of numerous vote counts and challenges thereto- the "rightful" winner of that contest? For all the travesty that Bush v. Gore was (and I am by NO means defending it), the vote counts at the time that the recount was stopped favored Bush. NONE of the vote counts in the Minnesota Senate race have favored Coleman. My prediction is that the Minnesota Supreme Court will rule in Franken's favor and that Pawlenty will be under overwhelming pressure- if current polls are any indication- to seat Franken or for Coleman to concede. I doubt it will get into the federal courts let alone SCOTUS. I could be wrong but................

[Doctor_J]

24. I hope when the give the seat to Coleman we burn the place down

but highly doubt it.

[mnhtnbb]

27. They will decline to hear the case.

[tammywammy]

28. They'll decline to hear it n/t

[NYC Liberal]

29. SCOTUS can rule however it wants to, but

In the end, even if Coleman ends up "winning" because of some fucked up ruling akin to Bush v. Gore, the Senate can still refuse to seat him.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. They won't hear the case, this isn't a presidential election

The SCOTUS was less inclined to duck the issue in Bush v Gore because it was a national election. This is a senate race and it's beneath them to take the case unless there's some extraordinary circumstance that could change legal precedent. If they take this appeal then every close election will get appealed all the way to the SCOTUS and they don't want to tie up the federal courts like that.

[BlueMTexpat]

32. I would love to be fully confident about that for exactly those reasons.

But Bush v Gore really shook my confidence in today's SCOTUS.

So long as Thomas and Scalia, RW ideologues uber alles, are still there, it isn't a sure bet that at least one of those two won't move a petition forward. I don't believe that the case would win before the full SCOTUS, but if the legal wrangling helps to keep Franken out of the Senate for a while longer, I can easily see them playing along with their RW allies.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I think they have to vote on whether or not to hear the case

And while Thomas and Scalia are RW ideologues, they are also Supreme Court Justices which means that they have advanced to the highest point in their careers and have the best job security you can get. The RNC and the right wingers can't do anything to them because they are not politicians and they have lifetime appointments.