In Senate trial, Coleman turns to Bush v. Gore

[BigBearJohn]

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."

The circumstances are different, but Coleman's effort strikes the same legal notes as the Supreme Court lawsuit that handed George W. Bush a victory in Florida and put him in the White House. In that case, Bush's lawyers got the Supreme Court to agree that Al Gore's push to recount ballots in four Florida counties would have resulted in inconsistent standards from one county to another for deciding whether the infamous hanging or dimpled chads should count as legal votes.

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

[ThomWV]

1. OK, then just as in Bush v. Gore let them stop the count now.

[ColbertWatcher]

7. LOL! n/t

[Uncle Joe]

2. The voting it self had inconsistent standards in various counties of Florida,

Al Gore asked Bush twice to count the entire state, but by Florida law could only legally challenge in those counties with obvious problems and the Supreme Court was so ashamed of their verdict they didn't allow their judgment to set precedent.

[EFerrari]

3. I thought the court specifically said Bush v Gore could not be used this way?

[Blue Dog Dominion]

9. Kinda...

I think this (limted circumstances) was in the 5-4 decision that Florida could not continue the recount because they (Florida) did not have enough time to do a recount mandadted by the 7-2 decision and thus endanger the safe-harbor clause of the constitution.

[jkshaw]

4. I hope Franken is writing a block-buster

of a book about this!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. The opinion in Bush v. Gore (one of the crappiest decisions since Dred Scott)

specifically stated that the decision was "limited to the present circumstances." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

So, Normie, how are you going to argue it should apply to your lame, stoopid argument?

[Alexander]

6. Scalia, Bush v. Gore, 2000: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances."

In plain English: "This doesn't set precedent."

I believe it is unprecedented for a case not to set precedent.

Yet this one case in all of American legal history doesn't, and now Coleman's trying to cite it as precedent.

:wtf:

[ColbertWatcher]

8. So, Bush v Gore was only considered by the Supremes to set precedent?

Will every losing GOPer running for office pull Bush v Gore out of their asses and apply it willy-nilly?

WTF!?

[DCKit]

10. How else can they regain the majority?

Republics are terrible examples for our children - sore losers and even worse winners.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. Well, you know the GOP's motto: Party first! n/t