Sore Loserman Norm Coleman turns to Bush v Gore

[Bluebear]

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The success of Norm Coleman's lawsuit to reclaim his Senate seat could depend on how willing the trial judges are to find a precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from another messy, political charged election battle: Bush v. Gore.

Republican Coleman's greatest hope to overtake Democrat Al Franken's 225-vote lead is his argument that about 11,000 rejected absentee ballots should be given another look by the three judges hearing the case. His lawyers argue that many were rejected while other ballots with similar mistakes were counted, that standards were applied differently from county to county in violation of the constitutional standard of equal protection.

"It's a long shot," said Jan Baran, a Washington election attorney and former general counsel to the Republican National Committee. "But it worked for Bush v. Gore."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/minnesota_senate_bush_v_gore

[dogday]

1. Yes, and look where that got us....

:thumbsdown:

[HowHasItComeToThis]

2. I THOUGHT BUSH V GORE COULD NEVER BE LOOKED AT

[Arugula Latte]

6. Right. The Supremes made it clear it was a "one time only" kinda ruling.

:eyes:

[krispos42]

3. And Bush v. Gore expressly said "This ruling is not a precedent"

If memory serves.


Oopsie on Normie.

[whoneedstickets]

4. Yep, applys to "current circumstances only"...

.some reading
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html

[aquart]

5. Because they knew it was an unconstitutional pile o'merde.