I’m Good Enough, I’m Smart Enough, and Doggone It, the Minnesota Supreme Court Likes Me. This election may have been a virtual tie, but Al Franken swept the Minnesota Supreme Court today. The Court ruled that Franken should be certified as the winner of the state’s Senate race — rejecting a challenge by Republican Norm Coleman. With Franken, the Democrats will have the votes to overcome any filibuster (if you include the two independents).
On election night, Coleman was ahead by a margin of 206 votes out of more than 2.9 million votes. After the recount, Franken led by 225 votes.
Coleman’s hopes were pinned on thousands of absentees votes that were rejected by election officials, but the Supreme Court found that those voters failed to satisfy the conditions set out for such voting.
On the substantive due process issue, the court ruled:
We conclude that our existing case law requires strict compliance by voters with the requirements for absentee voting. Thus, we reject Coleman’s argument that only substantial compliance by voters is required. Having rejected this argument, we also conclude that the trial court’s February 13 order requiring strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting was not a deviation from our well-established precedent.
Because strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting is, and has always been, required, there is no basis on which voters could have reasonably believed that anything less than strict compliance would suffice. Furthermore, Coleman does not cite, and after review of the record we have not found, any evidence in the record that election officials required only substantial compliance in any past election or any official pronouncements that only substantial compliance would be required in the November 4, 2008 election. Nor does Coleman point us to the testimony of any voter who neglected to comply with the statutory requirements for absentee voting in reliance on either past practice or official assurances that strict compliance was not required.
At oral argument, Coleman posited that because of the increased use of the absentee voting method, it should now be treated as a right, not a privilege. But that is a policy determination for the legislature, not this court, to make. Indeed, Coleman‟s counsel acknowledged during oral argument that Coleman cannot claim that any voters changed their behavior based on the alleged substantial compliance standard.
It is difficult to argue with the Court’s opinion, which is well-written and well-based. There is no satisfying conclusion here for everyone. Coleman’s supporters have a right to be bitter. A couple hundred votes put the result on an almost arbitrary basis. I have long believed that there should be an automatic re-vote when candidates (both presidential or congressional) fail to receive a majority of votes. With the two most popular candidates, the election is likely to produce a majority favorite and avoid most such razor-thin results. While it is possible to still have close races, it is less likely.
Coleman has conceded the race.
Here is the ruling: OPA090697-6030
For the story, click here.
Patty C:
“Almost forgot – generally poor spelling, grammar, and sentence construction are other dead giveaways. He never studied proper English much less Latin…
‘Veni, vidi, vici’”
************************
Hey Patty for me it’s “”Veni, Vidi, Dormivi.”
Yes progressives when all you have left, insult and belitte.
Patty C,
I suggest you go and proof read the posts. Your style was compared by your progressive friends to mine.
So I would say you are yucking it up with the enemy.
Don’t believe that your friends took a shot at me at your expense?
2 July 2009 @4:06
Read it and weep. AY took a gratuitous shot at you then no one raised a word in your defense.
But that’s progressive m.o. they’ll cut anyone loose when it’s to their benefit.
Almost forgot – generally poor spelling, grammar, and sentence construction are other dead giveaways. He never studied proper English much less Latin…
‘Veni, vidi, vici’
Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur.
Progressives,
Yes continue to congratulate one another for nothing. All you have done is proven my point.
You take my bait.
Reveal your biases, predjudices, knee-jerk reactions, accuse, presume, assume.
Then jump on soapboxes to assault w/assigned positions of which your opponent has never articulted.
Get defensive and frenzied when your same rhetorical tricks are used against you to reveal what you are.
Then deny what you are while you futiley try to reverse the tactics I have already reversed on you.
Remain ignorant to what has been done and I continue to do to you.
As, in all your arrogance you stubbornly insist that you are playing me.
Understand you can not play the one who initiates the game. Everything is done on my terms. Your continued stubborness to realize how gullible and ignorant you are is your downfall.
All your premises are built upon fallacies. Your tactics are hypocritical. You are guilty of what you accuse others of just by the very fact that I so easily engage you.
But your vapid self-absorbtion will never let you see the light.
So go ahead continue to play to those in the peanut gallery.
Continue to congratulate one another for unrealized victories.
But that is another m.o. of the progressive to gang-up then dismiss and declare victory as you as you hiest one another on your progressive pedastal.
After the way I have exposed your biases and hypocricies. After you have been such easy fodder for my tricks I would hope that you would all engage in some self examination to realize your faults and deficiencies in thought.
Quo usque tandem abutere, siciliana, patientia nostra? Sicilian, if you are going to toss out Latin terms, you must at least be able to fake it properly. The correct phrase is “ad nauseam.” Your writing displays some gender deficiencies. See, once again I have fallen into your clever trap, you diabolical mastermind!
Wow, I’m amazed that this thread is still running strong. After reviewing the recent entries, I have made the following observations about Mr. sicilian:
—
This is what Bartlebee/Cromagnum Man/Waynebro’s MO was/is.
Start fights and then continiue to exasperate everyone until finally declaring himself the winner. He wants to start a private debate site and invite turlees as judges.
Mike A.,
“He is actually Antonin Scalia on speed.”
Now that’s good detective work! I thought his style was familiar . . .
Darn, I thought Mike A. meant Michael Jackson.
Mike A,
Your progressive tricks are ineffective as I’ve demonstrated over and over.
When all that is left belittle and label.
Keep proving my point
Mike S,
You have no credibility as I’ve displayed time after time. You only continue to exhibit your intellectual arrogance.
Playing the psychologist is another progressive rhetorical trick to try to discredit and dismiss their opponents.
I’ve already got inside your head. You played into my trap and continue to indulge me by doing so.
Sarti,
You define a progressive as I’ve proven ad nauseum.
It is impossible to debate anything w/progressives as I’ve proven ad nauseum.
You’re exposed biases make any debate w/you illegitimate.
You do NOT want to debate you onlly want to “PROVE” yourself right and “PROVE” others wrong.
You repeatedly exposed yourself as a biased, hypocrite who uses dirty rhetoric to win debates, as I’ve proven ad nauseum
Okay I will try not to add fuel to the fire; but I am laughing!
Wow, I’m amazed that this thread is still running strong. After reviewing the recent entries, I have made the following observations about Mr. sicilian:
1. He has an unhealthy fixation on “exposure.”
2. He confuses self-reflection with self-absorption.
3. He treats those who disagree with him as conspirators.
4. He is incapable of being convinced of the possible validity of alternative viewpoints.
5. He resides in a world of either/or theories of truth.
6. He believes that attacking the presumed motives of others is an appropriate tool of rhetoric.
7. He is unable to sustain an exchange of ideas on a single topic.
I am now prepared to reveal Mr. sicilian’s true identity. He is actually Antonin Scalia on speed.
“but now I’m just looking for the ref to stop the fight. And since he won’t and non of you progressives will throw in the towel to stop my pummeling, I will continue to get the exercise needed to combat progressives everywhere.”
I think that this whole thread has turned tragic. We are dealing with someone with issues, if you catch the drift, knowing my background. Go back over all his posts on this thread, read them and then see what you’re feeling inside. This is getting to be an exercise in cruelty and I admit my large part in it. It is one thing to argue with a troll, but I suspect this behavior goes far deeper than trollhood. I have no wish to explain this feeling of mine further for what should be obvious reasons, but I take no pleasure in the continued slaughter.
sicilian 1, you have destroyed all my arguments and exposed me. I am quitting now in deference to your superior intellect, which has exposed me for the progressive I am.
CEJ,
You’re right, maybe his ancestry is more complicated that I thought… “’tis but a scratch!” I guess I need to take another arm off.
sicilian1,
Well, you certainly can post at an impressive rate, I’ll give you that.
s1:
Of course you would initiate with the ad hominem insults.
Yes, I use mild ad hominem attacks as a humorous device and Mike S. repeated them using sarcasm, but as CEJ pointed out you were the first to use ad hominem attacks against Senator Franken and his wife.
s1:
You will NEVER ask me my opinion. You will only assign me one and continue to try and trick me into assuming your assigned position to me b/c you are a progressive.
I am not participating in a debate with you b/c as a progressive it is impossible to do so.
Here are some questions about your opinions: What do you think defines a progressive? Why do you think that it is impossible to debate with a progressive? Are you willing to test the hypothesis that it is impossible to debate progressives by answering my questions?
Sarti,
No continued funding is based on how well the research jives w/whatever the master doling out the money wants it to.
You’re research grant is not on the same level as the climate change scientists. (Below your level) These scientist have been completely corrupted by politics.
Oh, I forgot, you’re a progressive so only your “guys” are pure. It’s the others who have been corrupted.
But don’t you see how you insist that your views are “right”?
You have gone off defending your views before I ever stated any oppossing position. You let my ambiguous baiting techniques expose your bias. You continue to explicate when I don’t even ask you to do so further exposing your progressive arrogance.
I’ve only generalized and label after you’ve opened your mouth. You on the otherhand labeled me before I ever even made it clear what my positions were. Then you assigned positions to me and wait for me to assume them yet never once even think to ask me my position.
Ya, ask all those made a career out of heading federal agencies if they haven’t cooked the books. (see; Fanie/Freddie)The feds give the implication to those in charge what they’re suppossed to do. Those drinking at the climate change trough no what needs to be done.
You’d be better off getting hip to some of those “conspiracy theories” then you wouldn’t be such a pavlovian pawn to your progressive masters.
They intentionally disregard, misinterpret and manipulate data to serve their masters. If you do not agree with that then there is no arguing with you.
It’s like faith; either you believe in “God” or you don’t. And it’s not worth either side exhausting themselves trying to prove the other wrong. But, either/or is right and the only way we’re going to find out 100% who is right is when we die. But people get so fanatical about the issue that it degenerates into nothingness.
Climate change has become like a religion. And it is the EXTREMIST who CONTROL and RUIN the debate. I do believe in climate change but the issue has become so politicized and radicalized that NOTHING is being accomplished (see: cap-n-trade)
Why does it have to be either/or? Couldn’t there be some middle groun? Why do I have to completely buy what Al Gore says? Or completely buy what Michael Critchon said? Maybe George Carlin’s (oh, great progressive icon that he is) bit be right-on-the-money? Why do we have to draw lines in the sand?
The politics NEEDS to be ELIMINATED frrom the debate. Then maybe, we can get down to the science. Untill that happens I will remain skeptical and undecided.
You of course as the progressive will ignore my explication of my thoughts on the issue. You will continue to try and trick me into taking a side you’ve assigned me so you can “PROVE” to the other zealots and sychophants in the peanut gallery that you are “right”
Of course their research would be published. All it has to do is promote a view of the party masters and they’ll tout it as gospel w/out any hard facts.
You’re little life boat analogy shows you’re bias. To boil the climate change issue down to that type of simplicity to prove your point is disengenuous.
My analogy about climate change=religion was to prove the either/or mentality. You analogy proves my point about the either/or mentality. Yopu’ve already jumped on the assumption that the earth is the life boat so we ONLY have two options: yours or not yours and anyone who believes not yours no matter how diverse their opinion may be is wrong.
You see the grant money will keep on coming if the research says what the masters on either side want it to say.
I believe in the conspiracy theory. I’ve seen too much corruption in the system to ever believe it doesn’t exist. You have your rose-colored glassess on. I am not going to denigrate you for that b/c everyone wants to believe things are on the level. But I’ve been played by the system and seen it hurt others too many times to ever believe it’s not corrupted.
LOL!
I think we are going to need a paternity test for this troll; we have not ruled out “The Black Knight”! He always triumphs; he is invincible. “Come back here and take what is coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!”
Sicilian1,
You @ July 6, 3:17pm: “Of course you would initiate with those ad hominem insults.” Just to remind you again; it was you who started this thread with insults on July 1, 8:47am you called Senator Al Franken a “failed” comedian and then went on to attack his wife.
Gyges,
Of course, your right! So is Buddha!
One of the secrets of comedy is repetition.
SArti,
Of course you would initiate with the ad hominem insults. It is the rhetorical ploy of the progressives to influence their peanut gallery audience into believing that they are getting points.
If you could see pass your blind arrogance then you would see that I never do anything other than use your own words to attack you.
But of course you would ignore the fact that you admitted that you assignede a position to me. It doesn’t matter what excuse you use can you not see that that is not fair? But as a progressive these dirty tactics are so ingrained in you that you are obviously ignorant.
So not only did you prove that you were a progressive by assigning me a position. But in explicating why you did so you only proved further that you are a progressive. Then you’re inability to see the unfairness in that once again further exposes your progressivism. Then your ignoring of how I exposed all this further proves you are a progressive.
You will NEVER ask me my opinion. You will only assign me one and continue to try and trick me into assuming your assigned position to me b/c you are a progressive.
I am not participating in a debate with you b/c as a progressive it is impossible to do so.
You want to debate only so you can get on a soapbox rant.
I only want to continuously expose you.
How can you accuse me of twisting your words? I’m quoting you verbatim.
But that’s the progressive trick. Say something, have it thrown back, then try to say you didn’t say it.
I’ll quote you once again:
“Finally, even if, as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective at fighting global warming, I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution) since the only way for the free market to eliminate harmful waste is if there is a cost attached.”
No twisting of words. It means what it says. So you can rationalize and play your little semantic games. But you can NOT step out of it.
You see, what you do not understand was that I originally baited all the progressives on this site not to engage in any debate, b/c I already know that to be impossible w/progressives, but only to expose not only there ideology but there hypocricy and there dirty rhetorical tricks.
But b/c the progressive thinks he is always the smartest guy in the room you have failed to appreciate the advanced lesson in rhetoric which I have given all you progressives. I have used your own rhetorical baiting tricks against you. But you keep on stepping in it.