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.
Tonight Sicilian1 will be playing the part Vizzini.
Inigo Montoya: That Vizzini he can fuss.
Fezzik: I think he likes to scare us.
IM: He probably means no harm.
Fez: He is really very short on charm.
IM: You really have a great gift for rhyme.
Fez: Yes some of the time.
Vizzini: Enough of that!
IM: Fezzick are there any rocks ahead?
Fez: If there are we’ll all be dead.
Vizzini: No more rhyming; now I mean it.
Fez: Anybody want a peanut?
Vizzini: Yeaahhhhhh!!!!
Man in Black: Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! {pause} Were was I?
Vizzini: I can’t compete with you physically;
and your no match for my brains.
MIB: Your that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way; have you ever heard of
Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
MIB: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons!
Slar: Should we tell him the poison is in both cups?
Buddha: He’ll find out soon enough!
Gyges,
Eating kittens is just plain wrong!
I could not agree more. That was a family show. Father Knows Best. Never saw them in the same bed either.
But then again remember when June would tell Ward that he had been too hard on the beaver last night? Now that was a family show as well.
Gyges,
Eating kittens is just plain wrong!
Sicilian,
You left out that progressives all punch babies and eat kittens.
IS,
Thank you for your clarity.
The problem is that the progressives BELIEVE in everything WW said. WW was just honest b/c it was a new movement. Now the progressives hoodwink everyone by demonizing their opponents and wrapping their adgenda in a higher degree of morality.
They fail to believe what CC said abt the govn’t derived their powers from the consent of the people. They don’t understand that “THEY” work for us. They believe in the “nanny” state, they believe “the chosen” are endowed with a higher purpose and know what’s best. They don’t even realize the way they are “pawns” of their “masters” They consider everyone else to be the “ignorant massess” when their progressive masters include them in that very same lot. They willingly do the bidding for the “betterment” of society NEVER realizing all the liberties they are throwing away.
BOB, esq.
I would assume from your tag that you must be a lawyer. And obviously you possess some self esteem issues as you must make sure we all know you are a lawyer.
My federal lawyer was very good. He represented me admirably and I was satisfied. The federal arena is a very difficult venue for criminal defendents and lawyers. The feds stack the deck in their favor and most of the time as a criminal defendent you’re going to take what they give you. All you can ask from your lawyer is to make sure the feds don’t hurt you too bad. If you’re lawyer has done that then he has done his job.
Unfortunately most fed lawyer barely do the minimum. They are spooked at the power of the federal govn’t, deathly afraid to open their mouths to prosecutors and judges. Prosecutors themselves have immense power and exert it mercilessly. Most times a criminal defendant is better off w/a public defender b/c the prosecutors are more willing to work w/them. If a defendant comes in w/a high-priced bigshot the feds get real indignant. After all you’ve got a federal prosecutor making govn’t grade pay while this hotshot is probably making 5 times what the fed brings home in a year. The feds like to pull out all the stops to put the defendant in prison to teach them a lesson. The federal system is very draconian in nature. In some respects your better off w/a state beef and in some cases depending on specific state laws you’re better off w/a fed beef.
But when the feds come, they come hard and they come for blood. The more you try to fight them the worse they are.
Knowing the injustices perpetrated against many defendants as prosecutors work the #’s angle to keep their convictions high, knowing the many poor souls (Many times blacks from the inner city or illegal aliens) who fall through the cracks, knowing the personal biases prosecutor’s bring to their cases, I hope if you are one you bring a degree of passion to your job. I myself do not know how the zealots sleep at night. B/c putting one undeserving criminal behind bars or handing out an undeserved draconian sentence is not worth all the criminals who deserve their confinement.
If you are a criminal defgense attorney then remember, it’s guys like me who allow you to live your life. Your lifestyle depends on our existence. And if you’re one of those sell-out defense attorney’s (which I’m not claiming you are) then search your soul.
theres a lot of that on this site.
Mespo,
Yes continue to attempt to discredit me w/personal attacks. It is fallacious and the what the progressives always turn to as a last resort.
I never tried to hide my federal prison sentenve. I wear it proudly as a badge of honor. I did the crimes and served my time. And I stand in solidarity with all my convicted federal brothers past, present and future.
Now lets get to a lesson on affirming the consequent
The eqation would look like this:
If A Then B
B
——-
A
Your equation read like this:
A
B
——-
B is A
That is NOT an accepted logical equation. And it falls further on it’s face when you insert the words into the equation.
Donkey’s bray loudly
sicilian1 brays loudly
Therefore
sicilian1 is a donkey
How do the premises lead to the conclusion. You’ve stated that A does a thing and B does the same thing so you then conclude that B is what A is. That would never pass any logical standard.
So lets give you the benefit of the doubt
Donkey’s bray loudly then sicilian1 brays loudly
sicilian1 brays loudly
Therefore
Donkey’s bray loudly
That is what you would call a classic affirming the consequent in order to prove your antecedent.
But as you can see it does not prove what you were trying to conclude.
To prove your point you would’ve had to frame the eqation in a manner more like this:
If donkeys bray loudly and sicilian1 brays loudly then sicilian1 is a donkey
Donkey’s bray loudly
Therefore
sicilian1 is a donkey
That would be a classic modus ponens equation.
If you were intent on Affirming the Consequent then it would look like this:
If braying loudly makes sicilian1 a donkey then donkeys bray loudly
Donkey’s bray loudly
Therefore
sicilian1 is a donkey
Something like that would’ve passed a logical test much easier.
I reccomend you brush up on affirming the consequent before stepping in it again. Please do NOT let your psuedo intellectual arrogance get the best of you
Mespo: “It may be telling that our little logistician here learned little from his stint in a federal prison, but I have learned to expend neither time nor breath on a convicted felon–or a convicted anything. Call it ad hominem, but the common law judges and I agree that they are worth neither the time nor the effort it takes to separate their lies from their facts from their nonsense.”
A few questions; taunting as they may be.
Does the foregoing mean you have or have not the courage of your convictions?
Are you also saying that felons like Nelson Mandela are not worth the time or effort…?
I ask because I taunt.
Scilian1:
quit calling them progressives, they are either socialists or communists. There is nothing “progressive” about them. They denegrate the constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
I wish I had this but it certainly sums it up.
“They (liberals/progressives) repudiated the Founders’ principles, holding that there are no self-evident truths—in the Declaration of Independence or elsewhere—only change in the constant search for progress without final goals. There are no permanent rights with which man is endowed, but endlessly evolving rights that develop and grow based on new demands. Our fidelity must be to a “living” Constitution that adapts to fit the demands of the times. The way forward is to control social conditions and engineer a better society, redistributing wealth through a distant and patronizing welfare state that regulates more and more of the American economy, politics and society.
Over the course of the twentieth century—as America’s principles were assaulted, undermined, and redefined in our culture, in our uni¬versities, and in our politics—we have taken significant steps down this path. The Progressive Movement laid the intellectual groundwork, but the basic infrastructure of the modern welfare state established under the New Deal has expanded in regulatory scope and social purpose under the Great Society and its progeny in both political parties. We are in the beginning of a new and perhaps decisive move in this direction.
Now, more than ever, is the time to relearn the meaning and contemporary significance of the Declaration of Independence and recognize that modern liberalism has explicitly rejected the truths it proclaims.
Woodrow Wilson, one of the most famous early progressives, argued during the 1912 presidential campaign that “all that Progressives ask or desire is permission…to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle,” meaning that it should promote an ever-expanding set of powers for an ever-expanding government. The problem, he declared, was that pesky Declaration of Independence: “some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence,” he remarked with astonishment; “The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day.”
The progressive view rejects outright the very idea, at the heart of the Founders’ way of thinking, of being guided by permanent or fixed principles. As the prominent progressive historian Carl Becker put it in 1922, “to ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false, is essentially a meaningless question.” Such relativism renders meaningless the whole American experiment in self-government.
But denying the truth of America’s principles for the sake of “change” can make no claim to progress at all—a point made with unsurpassed clarity by Calvin Coolidge (learn more here) on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 1926: “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.””
NEVER did I present the professor’s stance of as being representative of my own. That is the BOTTOM line irrefutable.
I will NOT get trapped by your twisted word play. Your continued progressive rhetorical tricks will NOT be successful in luring me into a tit-for-tat argument allowing you to fire off your already loaded biased rant.
I have repeatedly admitted that I am a “fence-sitter” on the global-warming topic. I will NOT let you characterize the professor’s position as representative of mine. Through my attempts to find some sensical arguments about climate change I came accross the professor and liked what he said about skepticism vs. consensus and was only using those comments in regard to our debate on that topic.
You see, I am specific and NEVER represent myself to be knowledgeable about something of which I am not certain. Unlike you progressive types who only make assumptions to jump on your soapboxes and spew your pre-determined rants. No matter how hard you try to lure me I will NOT let you use me to rant and rave about your pet topic. You will NOT be successful in setting me up as the demon for you to them drape yourself in moral highness.
I do NOT debate climate change easier which way b/c the debate has been CORRUPTED by extemists on both sides. Every scientist is a bought and paid for shill for whatever interest group is using them to manipulate the science to promote their adgenda. WE THE PEOPLE are all being duped by everyone involved. I choose NOT to get involved b/c I am NOT an extremist and to be a part of that specific debate you MUST be an extremist on either side you fall.
So if you believe to deter “undesirable behavior” it is ok to tax the free market to eliminate what you determine to be “harmful waste” how is the market suppossed to remain “free”
Oh ya, I forgot, you’re a progressive therefore you were endowed with a naturally born right to determine the freedoms of all mankind. You, oh great progressive master are endowed with the moral authority to determine how much freedom is allowed in the “free” market. That is b/c it is only you, oh lord progressive who has the transcendent insight to determine what is “right” and “acceptable” “behavior” Oh, great progressive guide please set the path for us mere “ignorants” and “evil-doers” in the massess. It is only you oh great progressive majesty who knows what is “good” and “righteous” for us less than perfect beings. Oh great supreme progressive please shoulder this burden for humanity for it is only you who is endowed with the enlightened being to show us the way to perfection. Oh great omniscient progressive save us from ourselves and we will do your bidding in all things.
“I approve of taxing undesirable behavior to eliminate harmful waste from the free market.” That right there is the progressive mantra. I am so glad you felt the psuedo-intellectual need to insert yourself into the conversation and the intellectual arrogance to think you could lure me into an argument on your “home-turf” b/c I knew it’d only be a matter of time before you’d seal your doom. With all my verbiage in all my posts I could have NOT defined the progressive position so abtly.
“I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution) since the only way to eliminate harmful waste is for there to be a cost attached.”
That shall stand in memorium as the progressive thought process. Where do you get the arrogance to detern mine undesirable behavior? Where do you get the arrogance to determine harmful waste? And where do you get the arrogance to think that the only way to “eliminate” whatever it is you determine to be “undesirable behavior” is through taxation b/c there is a “cost attached”? Who endowed you with this superiority.
B/c maybe I can give you as a progressive a lesson in liberty. Punitive taxation does NOT work. It only stifles freedom’s and liberty. Punitive taxation was one of the reasons this country broke away from their colonizing masters.
The way to eliminate “pollution” if that’s only what you’re talking about is to encourage and incentivise invention and innovation. Give people are reason to go out and try to find a better way. Don’t just whack them with draconian tax burdens that harm investment and cause companies to out source and shut down.
You still do NOT get it. I’ve repeated over and over again that the taxation is NOT going to make a dent in carbon emissions. Don’t take my word for it, listen to ALL the global warming types. They’re disappointed in the cap-n-trade legislation beyond belief. They will tell you it did NOT go far enough to curb emissions. How many times do I have to repeat it for you to remove the blinders and see that you’ve been hood-winked by your progressive masters? But you’re all such slaves to the progressive party-line that you brainwash yourselves into believing that b/c your “guys” won and the other “guys” lost that it’s a “win” for your ideology.
I’ll repeat, WE THE PEOPLE got hosed big time. Our taxes will SKY-ROCKET, our energy bills will go THROUGH THE ROOF and if the ozone layer is burning up it will continue to do so b/c cap-n-trade will NOT stop it. These are IRREFUTABLE facts.
But you’re happy b/c you’re a progressive and your “guys” “won” and you can pat yourself on the back and feel fulfilled and all you in your ivy-towers can look down on the massess b/c another “moral” tax has been assigned to all the “evil-doing” carbon burning Americans.
Once again, I will quote you, “Finally, even if, as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective in fighting global warming, I still approve of the idea of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. polluting)since the only way for the free market to eliminate harmful waste is for there to be a cost attached to it.
So even though the implementation of the bill will NOT eliminate “harmful waste” you still want to attach a cost to the free market by taxing what, I will even concede for arguments sake, is “undesirable behavior” (pollution). So what’s your purpose if attaching a cost to the market by taxing undesirable behavior does not accomplish the mission of eliminating harmful waste? What gain do you get out of it besides saying your side “won”, draping youself in “moral superiorty” and “wagging” your “moral finger” at all us “evil-doers”
Oh ya, I forgot, those are your only intended gains. I keep on proving it time after time after time.
I know I will recieve a retort where you try to “step” out of what you “stepped into, you intellectual arrogance and ignorance will not allow you to do anything else. But go ahead, keep digging yourself deeper. After what you said I’m actually throwing sand on the coffin b/c I feel content in how definitvely you have proved my point. But you progressives never cease to amaze me just how deeply you can bury yourself. \
I’ll be waiting for your feeble retort but I must rest for a time. This continued sparing has tired me for the moment
Mespo727272:
you would dismiss Don King? Isnt that a rather shallow view? Some certainly are changed by prison and for the better. Although it is Dantes vision.
From the sicilian 1 blog: “I [sicilian 1]served a federal prison sentence and it didn’t cause an awakening me or a moment of epiphany. the experience only changed my perspective on life.”
**************
It may be telling that our little logistician here learned little from his stint in a federal prison, but I have learned to expend neither time nor breath on a convicted felon–or a convicted anything. Call it ad hominem, but the common law judges and I agree that they are worth neither the time nor the effort it takes to separate their lies from their facts from their nonsense.
He’ll find out soon enough. Or not. lol
sicilian1,
You said “Since your [sic] so brillant why don’t you read a quote from MIT professor Richard Lindzen when speaking about consensus vs. skepticism.” thus putting Richard Lindzen forward as someone who you believe has insight into the philosophy of science (the roles of consensus and skepticism in science). I believe that you fundamentally misunderstand the roles of consensus and skepticism in science and did the research that you suggested by looking up professor Lindzen in order to better understand your argument and found that he’s published no papers in peer-reviewed journals against global warming and that he is funded by oil companies. In what way is this not relevant to determining his (and by association, your) credibility? Also, I’ll put myself on a pedestal whenever I want to because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and dogggonit people like me…
Buddha and CEJ,
Should we tell him the poison is in both cups?
Now that’s comedy.
Slartibartlast,
You don’t like the rules b/c you can NOT adhere to any logic nor sensible rhetoric. I’ve exposed yoyr playbook continuously.
Do NOT continue to try to put yourself on a pedastal. You can adhere to any debating rules that you want but do NOT think that I won’t take every opportunity to expose them.
Admittedly I did bring up the professor’s name BUT do NOT think I will let you get away with continuing to use it as a red herring.
I NEVER defended his science. I only said I liked his argument/reasoning behind skepticism vs. consensus.
You cherry-picked an argument for consensus while I then cherry-picked 2 for skepticism. SKEPTICISM vs. CONSENSUS is what i’m talking and they are BOTH valid positions. Many consensus’ are proven to be true while many skeptics prove themselves to be true. You raised the issue of consensus to support something you said and I raised the issue of skepticism to prove just how valid that it too can be.
You will NOT trap my into any global-climate-whatever pidgeon-holing. I have stated repeatedly that I am NOT an expert and am undecided. I NEVER presented the professor’s opinions as representative of mine. Once again, I only stated what he said abt skepticism vs. consensus.
Hey, you look for consensus. But I’m a critic by nature and look for the holes in argument. So obviously you will be swayed by consensus opinion while I will be more of the skeptic. But please, stop trying to reinvigorate yor arguments or lure them into familiar ground from which you can rant by throwing red herrings into the argument.
Where do you get off accussing me of putting the professor forth as an authority? Where did I ever even mention him as representing my position on climate-change when I brought up his name? Do NOT try to use your rhetorical progressive tricks to hold the high ground. It is disengeious and dishonest. Or are you just too ignorant to see what you are doing? Do NOT use loaded questions or attach me with a buzz-label. I repeat I NEVER represented the professor to be an authority repesenting my views and I do NOT appreciate your attempts to characterize it as such. Learn some better rhetorical tricks than that.
How could the professor who is not a believer in global warming ever represent my views when on more than one occassion on this post I emphatically stated I was undecided about global-warming?
But you have only shown your true progressive colors. You have manipulated a circumstance to jump on your soapbox and attempt to disparage me.
I am too smart to ever be lured into a tit-fot-tat, finger-pointing argument.
Of course you agree w/taxing “harmful” behavior. You’re a progressive. You feel it is your right to determine the freedoms of everyone. You feel those who do not agree with you are on the side of “evil” and it is you the “righteous” responsibility to punish them with draconian taxation.
As I explained the taxation will have no effect beyond raising more taxes b/c their is not enough in the bill to make a dent in carbon emissions. If you don’t believe me then go check out what all the hardcore global-warming apologists are saying.
But like the good progressive you are you feel good about yourself and feel as if you’re getting your “brownie-points” to heavan b/c you’re on the side if what you’ve determined to be “good” and you’re “for” punishing those “evil” people who engage in what you determine to be “harmful behavior”
I hope it makes you sleep better at night that the American public will pay higher taxes, lose more freedom and the ozone layer will STIL continue to burn b/c there will only be an infintesimal reduction in carbon emissions.
And that is why I’m against cap-n-trade. B/c if the ozone is burning this legislation is NOT going to do anything to stop it.
But I’m glad you exposed yourself as the progressive you are who believes a “win” is when their masters “beat” the other “guys” as long as they’re able to wrap their actions in all kinds of moral platitudes.
at last, the Al Franken Decade begins.
Buddha & Slar,
LOL!!! I love that movie; I keep picturing S1 as Vizzini- “never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line…..
Fortunately I am a woman with only the normal 5 digits per hand!
“I do not mean to pry, but you don’t by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?”