Comments on: Franken-Coleman Update, 04/22/09: Expedite That Sucker

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:02:49 +0000

Thanks for keeping this on the front burner here. I suspect a lot of Senate business is being slow-walked in order to delay it until Franken gets there. Nominations for federal judgeships and the likes of Dawn Johnsen among them.

We really need to move on those before Souter or someone else leaves the Supreme Court. Souter has not hired law clerks for the October Term, meaning he’s missed the typical market timing for such hires, suggesting he won’t need them.

By: hackworth1

hackworth1 — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:31:32 +0000

Will Gov. Pawlenty, (pawlenty of Republican grinning, lying and sandbagging) sign the certificate after the MN Supremes ream Coleman? Or will Pawlenty help to push this to the Federal Supreme Republicans?

By: jayt

jayt — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:07:43 +0000

weren’t oral arguments presented at the Court of Appeals level? Are there any new issues presented?

on edit: I seem to recall watching oral arguments presented wrt to this case *somewhere*…

By: newspaperbrat

newspaperbrat — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:06:43 +0000

Thanks for the update!

By: perris

perris — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:01:44 +0000

as I said downstairs pw, I love your updates and look forward to following your posts every day

I will miss your diligence when we finally do seat franken and hope you find another cause for us to read

By: HIVANH

HIVANH — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:01:43 +0000

Every morning, I wake up to expect a news story, telling me that this has all been a public relations stunt, and it never happened. But every day I am disappointed. This is ridiculous, undemocratic and perverted.

By: Phoenix Woman

Phoenix Woman — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:52:15 +0000

They could, but they most likely won’t as they don’t want to give Norm anything — ANYTHING — that he could use to justify a stay from Strip-search Sammy Alito.

By: puppethead

puppethead — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:47:57 +0000

Do we really have to have oral arguments? Can’t the MN Supreme Court just examine the existing record and rule? It just freaking happened.

By: Mithras61

Mithras61 — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:30:05 +0000

Coleman’s attorney’s are proposing the MN Supreme Court set a schedule that puts oral arguments 11 days later than what Franken’s attorneys have proposed.
Document here: http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=3409 Under Coleman’s plan oral arguments could not start until after May 15th

You forgot the part where Normie said - “and we aren’t trying to delay for the sake of grauitous delaying. We really Really REALLY need the extra time evenifIcan’ttellyouwhy.”

By: Phoenix Woman

Phoenix Woman — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:01:49 +0000

It’s rather telling when a simple Motion to Expedite is better grounded in relevant case law than two appeal filings, isn’t it?

Oh, and Normie of course is now saying Whoa Nellie! From The UpTake’s live blog this morning:

Coleman’s attorney’s are proposing the MN Supreme Court set a schedule that puts oral arguments 11 days later than what Franken’s attorneys have proposed.
Document here: http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=3409 Under Coleman’s plan oral arguments could not start until after May 15th