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.
sicilian1,
You don’t get to control how I respond – the only thing that you control is what you post. You don’t make the rules – the only person who makes the rules on this blog is Professor Turley, so please stop referring to the convoluted, abstruse set of debating rules that seems to exist only in your head and answer the points that others raise (or don’t, but if you don’t you are tacitly admitting that you can’t). When you put forth a person as an authority (Richard Lindzen), it is reasonable for us to consider the bona fides of that person in order to determine their credibility (well, now didn’t that sound all lawyery… I’ve been hanging around this blog too long). Galileo planted the seeds of the current consensus because he had evidence to back up his skepticism (also, the consensus he was opposing was not a scientific one, but a religiously enforced one). Columbus was performing an experiment to test his hypothesis that there was a faster way to the East Indies (and it’s been know that the earth is round since early seafaring times when people observed the hulls of ships disappearing from view before the mast). Do you really think that if not for Columbus’ voyage Europeans would have never found the Americas? Finally, even if, as you say, cap and trade is ineffective at fighting global warming, I still approve of the idea of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. polluting) since the only way the free market can eliminate harmful waste is for there to be a cost attached to it.
Mike S,
Abstruse -adjective 1) hard to understand; recondite, esoteric: abstruse theories. 2) (Obsolete) secret; hidden. Good word, eh? I, too, can’t help but feel a little sorry for siciian1 along with a sick fascination with his version of reality.
CEJ,
It’s inconceivable that sicilian1 doesn’t understand the words he’s using…
Color me curious.
So what’s perfection like?
Do you ever tire of being the only intelligent life in the universe?
Do the voices in your head keep you up at night?
What color is the sky in your world?
CEJ,
Do NOT try to cherry-pick out of context quotes. I give LONG well-developed dissertations where I explicate my thoughts and cover my bases.
What? It’s ok for Mike S to make a lame attempt at satire but my lame attempt at sarcasm is then used to demonize. You see, I gave you the rope and you used it to hang yourself.
You like all progressives try to skip the issue and sling mud. My lesson lfet today at July 3 2009, @2:07 proves how you all fallede right into my trap.
But like the intellecvtual arrogants all of you are you refuse to acknowledge your defeat. Please, keep satisfying my objectives.
snicker cough cough
Sicilian1,
I’m sorry you see my posts as attacks I meant you no harm.
Sicilian1 @ 1:22pm “I project NOTHING on ANYONE until they take my bait and throw the first salvo.”
This was your first comment on this thread @8:47am :
“Only in America!!! A failed comedian has become the MOST powerful man in the Senate…la,la,la,la……………….
The words you use…; you keep using those same words ….;
“I do not think they mean what you think they do!”
Let the record show @2:07pm you left off a few “assumptions”:
#12 Lacks a Sense of Humor
#13 Lacks Self Awareness
#14 Tiresome Repetitive Bore
#15 SCHMUCK!
p.s. “Never get in a land war in…..”
CeJ,
Yes, continue to prove my point. Personal attacks are all you progressive types have left. You’re attempts to belittle me not only expose your inferior sense of humor but they expose your dirty little rhetorical tactics that those in your crowd lean so heavily upon.
A play to the peanut gallery does NOT equal a win. Consensus does NOT mean you are right. I do NOT judge “wins” or “losses”, “right” or “wrong” on how many pavlovian dogs I can round up into my camp.
The only pleasure I get is intinsic. Secure in the knowledge that I have once again exposed the hypocricy of the progressive crowd. And to be able to do it on a site that could not even be classified as a blatantly progressive site is quite the accomplishment on my part. So continue to satisfy my objectives it is greatly appreciated.
If all you progressives want to see my lesson in how I played you then please refer to my prior post on this site:
July 3, 2009 @ 2:07pm.
Please Mike, no regrets this thread keeps getting funnier and funnier; you guys crack me up! (He could just stop posting.)
Although you may have a point; maybe he has no one else.
Seriously Sicilian1,
Please accept this with no disrespect intended but is there anyone you can confide in with whom you could share this and a few of the other threads you have posted on; maybe get some objective feedback on your contributions to the dialog here.
It couldn’t hurt and it might be helpful in other areas too.
p.s. Yes, Craig Ferguson is another very funny “progressive”…
Mike S,
More progressive tricks. Trying to discredit me by dismissing me w/your arrogant elitist hand. It will NOT work.
Your attempt at irony is beyond lame. Do NOT try to assault me to cover up for BAD satire. See that’s some more of your rhetorical dirty-dealings.
Just b/c you are the ultimate Islamic apologist and do not like my criticisms does not make my criticisms invalid. You have read my post/blogs and you know full well that my criticisms of Islam are well founded and you yourself have admitted right here on this site that you have agreed with many of my criticisms.
So you’re attempts to categorize or demonize me with your lame satirical attempts are not only a failure but dishonest. You try to satirically frame my criticism as baseless generalities just get pat yourself on the back and play to your sychophants in the peanut gallery.
Do you see how you continue to discredit yourself? If you’re are going to generalize my arguments on Islam w/satire then what does that say about you who have admittedly on this very site stated that you do agree with many of my criticisms of Islam?
Do you see that that in fact makes you dishonest? Or so driven by ego-mania and arrogance that you yourself are willing to bring discredit on you just to slur and make lame attempts to poke fun at me.
My name is Luka…
I live on the second floor?
Sartiblasdt,
I will give you kudo’s b/c you did ever so slightly get me to bite on your bait and you should be congratulated.
I ussually argument my points on the premises that I raise alone.
I will NOT debate the issue of global warming b/c I am not convinced one way or the other. I have seen too much conflicting informattion.
Once again, you exposed yourself for your inability to stick w/in the parameters. My only premise was consensus vs. skepticism. While I may in fact believe the professor to hold holes in many of his own arguments, I did like what I had read he said about the need for skepticism in science.
As I stated skepticism VS. consensus was nmy ONLY point. It was you who went off on a rant about scientific consensus. Then you cherry-pick examples to try and prove your consensus point.
Well, here’s a skepticism example:
Galileo was skeptical the sun orbited the earth: when that was the consensus. Imagine if we didn’t have that LONE WOLF questioning the “consensus” we would’ve never found out it was actually the earth orbiting the sun.
The consensus was that the earth was flat too. But Christopher Columbus was skeptical and he set out and discovered the new world. Now think if he had never done that. None of you progressives would have America, the country you live in, to rail against.
I may in fact be able to be conviced that global-warming is happening. I am NOT a slave to any one ideology. However just b/c I am against cap-n-trade does NOT mean I am automatically against global-warming. And just b/c I subscribe to skepticism in science as oppossed to consensus does NOT mean I do NOT believe in global warming. B/c this time the consensus may prove the skeptic wrong and the next time may be vias-versa. Only time will tell.
But please, cease and disist using my post as a chance to manipulate your way onto your soapbox. Stay w/in the parameters of the argument.
Slartibartfast,
Your cat and mouse analogy is apt. I was trying to give him a sporting chance by defining irony, but alas like everything else it is lost on him, clouded by the haze of his imagined superiority, covering a psyche which would be cruel to speculate on. At least GWLSM has taught him that using caps only does not an argument make.
To be honest though, while even being caught up in this and admittedly a prime offender. I can’t help feeling sorry for him. A central premise of his is that academics,intellectuals and those dreaded progressives have treated him badly and tormented him. From his perspective he takes our rejoinders as more of the same. He seems incapable of realizing that he has brought this on himself and so feels himself as sort of a lone fighter for justice, among smug pseudo-intellectuals.
My sadness stems from the fact that as a child I was picked on a lot and while a game fighter got beat up a lot. I lived with this victim feeling until I got some help and then came to see how my own arrogance many times invited the attacks. It was a hard thing to realize about myself, but ultimately liberating. So I have some empathy for his problems, which is
admittedly tempered by his obnoxious methods.
Progressives,
I will now finally give you a lesson on how I exposede your ad hominem biases, lack of critical thinking, ignorance and every other sly trick you are guilty of.
1)I initially said that the seating of Franken would now give the Dems their fillibuster proof majority which would allow passage of cap-n-trade and all their other social engineering adgenda.
You as knee-jerk progressives got you dander up and immediately assumed that I was against cap-n-trade. A logical assumption I will concede.
However, where your illogical inability to reason reared it’s ugliness. You assumed that b/c I was against cap-n-trade that I was:
1)Against global-warming
2)A conservative
3)A Republican
4)A Necon
5)Anti-Obama
6)Intolerant
7)Racsist
8)Bigoted
9)Lacking compassion
10)Ignorant
11)Just b/c I was against one position of the Democratic adgenda I was against all of them.
Then you allowed your progressive inability to control your emotions consume you and took the assumption that I was against cap-n-trade to brand me with the 10 other labels and then some.
Never once was I asked to explicate my reasons and even they I did in more than 1 post, they were ignored as you progressives indulged in your ad hominem attacks.
So even my implication that I was against cap-n-trade set you progressives off on a fury and the immediate labeling of me without ever trying to engage me to discover my reasonings behind my position which in effect accomplished my ONLY mission which was to expose your own unreasoned biases.
Lets take the argument that I (sicilian1) am against cap-n-trade.
My convergent arguments to support why I am against that legislation are:
1)I do not believe taxing Americans is a way to remedy the problem. Any arguments in support of the taxation (i.e. the punative need or the moral responsiblity, etc.)are not sufficient in my opinion to justify the increased taxation.
2)Especially if you are part of the global-warming crowd you should be disappointed by this legislation b/c it does NOT do nearly enough (infintesimal at best) to curb carbon emissions. The REAL HARDCORE global-warming believers are very disappointed with this legilation b/c it did NOT serve their interests of causing a significant decrease in carbon emissions.
C)So even if you believe in taxation as a way to remedy this problem you should NOT be happy b/c the increased taxation will be mainly just that, a tax increase, and will do nothing to accomplish what it was suppossed to accomplish which was to reduce carbon emissions.
So the two sub arguments of the main argument stand alone. You can agree or disagree with either/or.
However, they do link to support the conclusion. So here you have an initial argument:
sicilian1 is against cap-n-trade.
That is supported by two sub arguments which can then be linked to support a conclusion.
This is how a logician would keep all his bases covered in argumentation.
So to conclude further:
If one is for cap-n-trade legislation they are then for:
1)Higher taxation at no real benifit for the intended purposes.
2)An INFINTESIMAL decrease in carbon emissions.
3)Are blind slaves to their party masters.
4)Label a win as their “guys” defeating the “guys” no matter the consequences to them or their nieghbors.
Again, we have a convergent argument where the sub arguments can stand alone to support the stated conclusion.
The big bad “white elephant” in the argument is this:
1)The legislation will NOT make a dent in carbon emissions.
That is irrefutable. The global-warming alarmists are raging about that fact. They are disappointed to the point of suicide.
That can NOT be ignored and anybody who does is nothing more than a BLIND party loyalist/ideologue who has been demagouged to death and will demagouge anyone who disagree’s with him.
The fact that I have been attacked and branded, the fact that the debate has degenerated to mainly a vile name calling assault against me proves my point about progressives.
All it took was a little bait and they all bit. They immediately jumped on their self absorbed soapboxes demonizing me and wrapping themselves in their capes of moral superiority. They proved by their own actions who DISINGENUOUS, arrogant and ignorant they all are.
If they REALLY cared about global-warming and were even willing to accept punitive taxation to accomplish their self designated high minded adgenda they would be against the cap-n-trade bill passed in the house b/c the thing they’re so concerned about (global-warming) is not going to be remedied in the slightest. But they’re happy b/c their “guys” won and anybody who disagrees is against their “guys” so they pull out the ad hominem artillery.
I proved my point and accept your continued feeble challenges to prove it again and again
sicilian1,
You should really avoid referencing someone to support your (Brief grammarian aside – your first sentence should read: “Since you’re so brilliant…” not “Since your so brilliant…”, I would appreciate better attention to detail when discussing my brilliance ;-)) argument without giving a link yourself, especially when googling the person in question yields far more sites attacking his conclusions and credibility than supporting it. For starters, a page debunking Richard Lindzen can be found here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
One quote from this page that I liked was “…Lindzen has no testable theory, no data, and no papers explaining the current temperature trend.” For us scientists (and while I am not an expert on climate change, I am a working research scientist) the lifeblood of scientific endeavor is testable hypotheses – you formulate a hypothesis, determine an experiment to test its validity, collect data, and publish evidence supporting your argument (preferably in a respected, peer-reviewed journal). In science there will always be people who don’t agree with the consensus, but until they can produce evidence to support their position they do not in any way invalidate that consensus.
Please keep up the0 debating, it’s very entertaining watching your antics. It’s like a mouse being played with by a bunch of cats and thinking he is winning because he’s still alive, never realizing that killing him would spoil the cats’ game. Besides, the Buddha would be inconsolable if he didn’t have you to play with…
Mike S,
Thank you for the definition of irony (and here I thought that irony meant things were metal-like…) and your in depth analysis of sicilian1’s debate style. I’m waiting to see if he can master the “Did not! Did too!” and “ppptthhbbb!” techniques.
sicilian 1 debating style:
nyah, Nyah, NYah, NYAh, NYAH. All sturm no drang.
Buddha,
Oh Siddarthura would be ashamed to have such an ignorant as a student. You besmirch the great ones name.
Please continue to step in it.
Mike S,
You’re suppossed attempts at irony were irrelevant b/c none of your points could be definitvly attributed to any accusations I may have made.
It was a lame and hueeied attempt at best and did Not accomplish or expose anything in the slightest.
The next time you make an attempt at satire put a little more thought into it or at the very least keep your day job b/c work as a satirist is definitely NOT in your future.
I project NOTHING on ANYONE untill they take my bait and throw the first salvo. So please continue to do so b/c you are definitely proving my point and satisfying my goals.
So I am glad you admitted to your guilt b/c in many crimes intent is enough to convict. So you are guilty of intending to attempt to discredit me by branding me which plays to the ignorant sychophants in your lot who think whoever throws the most and most debasing slurs is the winner of an argument.
Your attempts to win arguments rhetorically and logically have failed. So you attempt satire only to expose your lack of satirical skills.