Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Minn. Supreme Court Rules for Franken; Coleman Concedes

Updated, 4:05 p.m. ET: Former senator Norm Coleman conceded to Democrat Al Franken, ending the Minnesota Senate race that has drawn on since November and clearing the way for Franken to become the 60th Democrat in the Senate.

"The Supreme Court has made its decision and I will abide by the results," Coleman told reporters at an afternoon press conference outside his home in St. Paul.

Original Post

The unanimous decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court today affirming a lower court's decision that Democrat Al Franken had won the state's Senate race is almost certainly the end of what has been a long and winding road.

The Court's decision, which was released just after 2 p.m., was long anticipated by both sides and in the days leading up to the ruling conventional wisdom among Republicans was that there was little appetite for former senator Norm Coleman to keep up his legal fight.

On Sunday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) indicated he was inclined to sign the certificate of election for Franken if the state's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Democrat.

If, as expected, this ruling forces a concession from Coleman, Senate Democrats will quickly move to seat Franken to bolster their numbers.

While Franken is technically the 60th democratic vote, Sens. Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy are both in ill health and are not able to vote.

What the decision means for Coleman's political future is less clear.

Some have mentioned him running for the open governorship in 2010 but his extended legal fight has damaged him in the eyes of many voters -- making such a bid risky.

By Paul Volpe  |  June 30, 2009; 2:49 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sanford Admits To More Contact With Mistress
Next: Morning Fix: How Franken Won

Comments

Anyone else?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 2:42 AM | Report abuse

so, only you get to talk trash about "sucking"?

Posted by: JakeD | July 1, 2009 2:36 AM | Report abuse

hahaha Jake pops his cork again.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 2:10 AM | Report abuse

At least I'm not the one that sucks dick.

Posted by: JakeD | July 1, 2009 2:01 AM | Report abuse

The topic is Coleman-Franken, not Jake's undies being all bunched up his crack over Obama.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 1:32 AM | Report abuse

OK, so much for "stay[ing] on topic" then.

Posted by: JakeD | July 1, 2009 1:23 AM | Report abuse

I disagree it was a "folly" and the White House grounds are hardly the entire Executive branch (think of every Cabinet dept.).

==

Who cares if you agree or disagree? You're a moron, and your mind is not whole.

Nodebris already answered you with pitch-perfect clarity, omitting nothing but your endless screech about Obama's f*cking birth certificate. Just shut up, everyone's heard all you have to say a thousand times.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 1:19 AM | Report abuse

My guess is that Coleman got the news that any appeal to the "ROBERTS Supreme Court" would be declined. He didn't decide to throw in the towel because he got a late attack of civic-mindedness, any suggestion of fair play would have shown up months ago.

And even had the "ROBERTS Supreme Court" elected to hear Coleman's cheesy whine, the outcome would have been the same, because after all, Franken got more votes.

The effect would have been only to thwart the wish of the voters a few more months .. might have been worth it if the GOP had any more room to fall, but really they don't, the only supporters they have left are hate-crazed teabaggers and biblethumpers in the deep south.

Coleman is finished. A principled and timely concession would have allowed him a shot at succeeding Pawlenty, now there is no chance of that.

And it didn't even change the outcome of a single vote in the Senate while Coleman denied reality.

Way to go, stupid Republicans, enemies of democracy, traitors to America.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 1:17 AM | Report abuse

I disagree it was a "folly" and the White House grounds are hardly the entire Executive branch (think of every Cabinet dept.).

Posted by: JakeD | July 1, 2009 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Nobody cares about your take on Coleman, Jake, you're a moron

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 1:11 AM | Report abuse

For the last time, I said I was disappointed that Coleman dropped out (but I understand his decision) because an appeal to the ROBERTS Supreme Court was a good play until the October term started.

Posted by: JakeD | July 1, 2009 1:08 AM | Report abuse

more than $8 BILLION.

==

less than three weeks of Bush's Folly in Iraq

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Two billion per annum is pretty cheap for an entire branch of government.

I'd rather we saved the $541 / month that Jake gets for his psychiatric disability, allowing him to post here sixteen hours a day

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 12:59 AM | Report abuse

10emlet:

Do you think he "wasted" more than $8 BILLION.

Posted by: JakeD | July 1, 2009 12:57 AM | Report abuse

"At least nobody is discussing Coleman's humiliating loss to a Democratic comedian :)"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Hey Jake, you suck. Go away.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 12:54 AM | Report abuse

No.

Posted by: JakeD | July 1, 2009 12:51 AM | Report abuse

White House expenses again. Sigh. Suddenly, since Obama was elected, that's an acutely pressing topic. Yeah. Right. You keep pushing that one, and no one bites. It's really that dumb, you can't even get zouk on board for it.

It's clear what you're doing: Let's discuss anything except the unfortunate point of the actual thread, i.e., that Franken won, like we all long ago knew he had, despite the money fools spent making Coleman and Republicans look bad by fighting the issue long past its expiration date. Another grotesque failure for conservatives -- and one of jaked's particular pet causes, too. No wonder he keeps trying to change the subject. Transparent, much?

No, let's stay on topic and discuss what an enormous, pointless, and self-destructive waste it was financing the last few months of Coleman's battle. Did it stop any legislation? No. Did it make Republicans look good? No. Did it establish some principle? No. Did it make Republicans look desperate, power-hungry children who can't work and play well with others? Yes.

For the record. Next canard. Anyone else? If anyone besides jaked cares to discuss, I'll be at an undisclosed location awaiting your worship. Because of online threats I've suffered. But at least I'm civil. No, you answer my question first. Amp. Click. Whrrrrrrrrrr.

Posted by: nodebris | July 1, 2009 12:51 AM | Report abuse

How about a few trillion dollars wasted, four thousand lives, tens of thousands of injuries including major brain wounds, on two "wars" of choice? Think that might come in handy?

Stupid troll. Roll over and die.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 1, 2009 12:17 AM | Report abuse

10emlet:

For sure, it was not more than the $2 BILLION it costs per year to run the White House. We could cut back on some of that, don't you think?

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 11:20 PM | Report abuse

We all know how much time this Coleman wasted, what is the amount of taxpayer money he wasted in this time of economic stress? Some of these jerks will do anything at all to hold on to power at any and all costs and the taxpayers/voters be damned!

Posted by: 10emlet | June 30, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Whew! What a fantasy life jaked has. His daily round of public self-humiliation is "fighting libs," and he puffs up his chest with fiesty courage in the face of imaginary "online threats."

Egad. It's like a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, except he never reaches that last panel where the real world re-asserts itself.

The fixation with Keyes and Palin becomes ever clearer.

Posted by: nodebris | June 30, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

One last note about "on-line threats" -- I will try to check in later if anyone other than "chrisfox8" wants to discuss

==

You "do that," "Jake."

You "check in" and see if anyone wants to "discuss" anything with you.

Never happened yet, but who knows? "Someone" might "bite."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I have a great deal of sympathy for Mrs. Yates -- she was clearly suffering from a religious mania when she drowned her children. She needed help long before she had her last baby and she didn't get it. What she did was a crime.

==

I disagree. I think it was her husband deserved to go to jail.

For a woman to kill her own children without any possible gain from the act is not the behavior of a sane person. She was savagely depressed and incapable yet her husband was so enamored with the idea of polluting the future with his religious genes that he forced his wife to bear him one child after another, after another, after another.

Killing her children was wrong, of course, but the law is not indifferent to the mental state of the accused. I think she should have gone to an institution, not to prison.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 8:40 PM | Report abuse

I have a great deal of sympathy for Mrs. Yates -- she was clearly suffering from a religious mania when she drowned her children. She needed help long before she had her last baby and she didn't get it. What she did was a crime. Susan Smith chose to kill her boys and lie about it rather than woman-up: what she did was also a crime.

Yes, Britain's health care system is not perfect. Nor is Canada's or France. We can learn a lot from them. Nye Bevan said he knew he had done a good thing with National Health when an older woman came up to him in a slum and thanked him for her false teeth. She said she could now eat better and she could go to church without feeling ashamed of being toothless. He said it was the most humbling thing he had ever heard.

Now, Jake, go out on the porch and have a drink with your wife. Life is too short.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Did you also "understand" that Susan Smith or Andrea Yates "could not be mothers" as well? You think they should not be prosecuted?

==

Andrea Yates is a desperately mentally ill woman whose Mormon husband forced her to bear children despite her condition.

Thanks for outlining the grotesque attitude toward woman that is the foundation of your "pro-life" views.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox wrote: "It was only a few short decades ago that the generic "he" was understood to refer to both genders."

The quaintly romantic explanation I was given for this in the ancient days of my youth was that 'he' embraces 'she' just as a man embraces a woman.

==

In Greg Egan's books taking place in the distant future, there is a new pronoun that's gender-neutral. Ve, vis, vim. I like that a lot.

Using "they" as a singular is grotesque, I know it's supposedly acceptable but to me it always means the speaker doesn't think about what it's saying.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

vehicular manslaughter is just a "difficult choice" for those who drink and drive too?

==

The fact that you need to resort to ridiculous hyperbole like this should give you a clue that logic is not on your side.

In manslaughter or murder or even infanticide a *person* dies .. someone who has experienced enough of life to have developed an individual and distinctive outlook. It's not only human flesh that dies, it's a human mind.

In the case of abortion none of this is true; there is as yet no individual, no distinctive experience, there is only flesh.

Abortion is no more immoral, really, than pulling off a hangnail. Neither has distinctiveness, nor experience, nor anything more human than some DNA.

You debate like a child.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

One last note about "on-line threats" -- I will try to check in later if anyone other than "chrisfox8" wants to discuss -- I've never denied that Obama is the de facto "President" and 18 USC § 871(a) is very clear on prosecution (I would throw in the question about his natural-born citizenship as a defense though):

"Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President ... or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

margartetmeyers:

Have you heard about the problems over national healthcare in England with the National Health Service?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)#Criticism

Did you also "understand" that Susan Smith or Andrea Yates "could not be mothers" as well? You think they should not be prosecuted?

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 8:25 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox wrote: "It was only a few short decades ago that the generic "he" was understood to refer to both genders."

The quaintly romantic explanation I was given for this in the ancient days of my youth was that 'he' embraces 'she' just as a man embraces a woman.

As Lou Reed said, "Those were different times."

Posted by: nodebris | June 30, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

You seemed interested in where the different proposals are going -- I'm just pointing out that there's enough opposition to taxpayer-funded abortions -- vehicular manslaughter is just a "difficult choice" for those who drink and drive too?

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Jake, I don't understand your link to the CNS news article.

I myself am a mother. Motherhood is my favorite part of my life. I understand that some women just cannot be mothers (yet/again/just now) even though they find themselves pregnant. I would rather that every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy, but I accept that I do not control other people and that they have to make difficult decisions for themselves.

I'm looking forward to seeing health care reform that
spreads health care to everyone,
that is focused on cost-effective practices and
is built on contracts that are well-defined and uniform.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Maybe JakeD knows why Sanford has a problem with American women, such that he has to go out of the USA for his dalliances.

==

If Jake had any truck with women, or with sex in any form that calls for a second person, he wouldn't post here every five minutes for sixteen hours a day.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I see JakeD is off the Sanford FIX.

Maybe JakeD knows why Sanford has a problem with American women, such that he has to go out of the USA for his dalliances.

Posted by: edlharris | June 30, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Hey CC, what are your thoughts on Froomkin's axing?

Posted by: punkybrewster1 | June 30, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

If he'd conceded in January, voters remorse would have him leading the polls for the Governor's office. But now, who wants him? He's branded as a sore loser.

==

If only. Coleman is the guy who tried to subvert the democratic process because he felt entitled to his seat, regardless of the voters' wishes. He's a lot worse than a sore loser, he's anti-democratic.

Maybe he'll move to Israel.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, some "threats" (against pResident Obama, for instance) are illegal whether one can carry out said threat or not -- I'm not talking about an illegal threat, though -- just angry words typed by a frustrated, bi-sexual atheist that you (mibrooks27) admit to not seeing. Maybe you were fishing at the time?

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

There's a lot more conservative dollars to burn through out there, y'betcha.

Posted by: nodebris

==

You mean what's left after paying alimony, supporting their pregnant daughters, and purchasing porn online.

All of which conservatives do substantially more of than liberals.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Now Norm Coleman can sit in his den with nothing to do and watch the Democrat who beat him fair and square do his job better than he did.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

As I recall, I simply told him I wasn't worried about his threat -- which only made him angrier -- no big surprise that he denies it now. Regardless of whether his threat was "sputteringly impotent" or not, if I typed out a similar threat like that, it would still be a threat (maybe I could carry it out without you knowing about it ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I haven't "heard" him either -- he TYPED the words: "... punch my fist through your teeth and down your throat ..." -- but, I guess you just missed that.

==

This is the "autistic literalism" troll again.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27:

I haven't "heard" him either -- he TYPED the words: "... punch my fist through your teeth and down your throat ..." -- but, I guess you just missed that.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - I have never heard chrisfox make any sort of violent threats against anyone. We correspond and I find him reasonable, albeit passionate, about the issues he believes in. He is, by the way, actually a very nice person.

==

Why thank you.

Jake is lying, of course. If I had made anything remotely like a physical threat (why would I, he's anonymous, such a threat would be sputteringly impotent), you can bet he would be posting it and mentioning it every ten minutes for sixteen hours a day.

Jake lies in pretty much every post.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"He" in 1787 (I'm not that old either) meant "he" not "he and she".

==

Google "generic he" you brainless twit

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - I have never heard chrisfox make any sort of violent threats against anyone. We correspond and I find him reasonable, albeit passionate, about the issues he believes in. He is, by the way, actually a very nice person.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | June 30, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Or, not.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50300

==

Not gonna happen.

If George Dubya didn't find a way to stop abortion with the House, Senate, and Supreme Court bending over to do his bidding, it's sure not gonna be stopped now.

Better get used to it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

"He" in 1787 (I'm not that old either) meant "he" not "he and she". It really was much more enjoyable around here when you kept your promise to "ignore" me. How about you go back to doing that?

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Article II, Section 1:

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. HE shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years ... In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of HIS Death,

==

And you claim to be old enough to be retired.

It was only a few short decades ago that the generic "he" was understood to refer to both genders. Under the influence (read: nagging) of a few radical feminists, our language has been adulterated by the awkward formulation "he / she" and its direct-object and possessive variants, and a dramatic uptick in the abhorrent use of "they" as a singular. A new pronoun would have been a better solution, or the overloading of "it."

Kinda funny that you claim to be 72, and you don't understand this.

Unless of course you really *are* autistic.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm not the one accusing others of donating only to one party.

==

The fact that you take an online blog so DAMNED seriously is pretty strong evidence that you have no life to speak of

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Whew! I wonder what kind of credulous dolt would flush his money down the toilet like that, giving it to Coleman?

But come to think of it, it's probably the same sort of people who adamantly support Palin, eh? You go, Sarah girl. There's a lot more conservative dollars to burn through out there, y'betcha.

==

Don't you think a lot of Democrats are donating to SarahPAC? Isn't it very VERY much in Democrats' interest that Sarah stays in the public eye, keeps shooting off her mouth, keeps being named as the probable next presidential nominee?

Nixon radicalized a lot of people leftward, Sarah must have a hundred times Nixon's potency to repel.

Not to mention, every dollar sent to Caribou Barbie is one dollar fewer sent to someon who has more of a shot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm not the one accusing others of donating only to one party.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I donate to pro-life Democrats as well.

==

Everybody got that?

Everyone be sure to update your JakeJournal.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

If he'd conceded in January, voters remorse would have him leading the polls for the Governor's office. But now, who wants him? He's branded as a sore loser.

Posted by: JayPen | June 30, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I donate to pro-life Democrats as well.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"I certainly can't control how other people respond (or don't) to my questions -- on another thread, someone threatened to punch me in the teeth -- that's not my fault, as I have never threatened bodily harm to anyone here."

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 7:31 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/052809white-house-cheat-sheet.html

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"... shove my fist through your teeth and down your throat ..."

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

it was a worthy cause to keep Franken out of the U.S. Senate for as long as we did.

==

hahahahaha

"we"

Thought you were a "registered independent"

But I knew you were stupid enough to "identify" as a Republican.

Go vote for that anencephalic pro-life midget!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

assuming I am still around and "chrisfox8" has not made good on his threats to kill me

==

Threats to kill you?

Look out for the black heely-copters, I control them with my mind.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I have never posted as anyone else on WaPo.com -- I already posted how disappointed I was about Coleman but that I understood his decision -- it was a worthy cause to keep Franken out of the U.S. Senate for as long as we did.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

COLEMAN did the right thing!

==

Not really. To do the right thing he would have had to concede when the actual vote count came in.

Trying to keep duly-elected Franken out of office to help out his party was in no way the right thing. His career is over.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

So, wait a minute, if "everything" I post is a lie (including that Gov. Pawlenty will sign the certification papers), does that mean he won't sign?! Or, is this current post a "lie" too? It's like that Prisoner's Dilemma!!!

==

For those new around here, this is an instance of JakeD's "autistic literalism" troll.

For example the figure of speech "nobody" believes you he will triumphantly point out that his fellow trolls (likely his own online alter egos) claim to believe him, therefore "nobody" is a lie.

Yes, I know, it's infantile.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Another loss for America... Gonna be a big mess for the GOP to clean up once we take office again...

==

Unless '94 is the year of your birth, you probably won't live to see the GOP take office again nationally.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

hey jakey-poo what's that you were saying about raining on parades? Coleman conceded.

I hope he wept.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal." Matthew 6:20

We don't donate that much apart from our church, but we do like to spread it around as much as we can ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least Coleman managed to suck a bunch of dollars out of gullible conservatives for a cause everyone knew was lost months ago. That's money that could have been doing something with results, up in flames. Poof! Unanimous rejection from the Court. Flush! Well done, Coleman.

Whew! I wonder what kind of credulous dolt would flush his money down the toilet like that, giving it to Coleman?

But come to think of it, it's probably the same sort of people who adamantly support Palin, eh? You go, Sarah girl. There's a lot more conservative dollars to burn through out there, y'betcha.

Posted by: nodebris | June 30, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Article II, Section 1:

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. HE shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years ... In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of HIS Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President ... The President shall, at stated Times, receive for HIS Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which HE shall have been elected, and HE shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before HE enter on the Execution of his Office, HE shall take the following Oath or Affirmation ..."

Section 2.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; HE may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and HE shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

HE shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and HE shall nominate ..."

Section 3.

"HE shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union ... HE may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, HE may adjourn them to such Time as HE shall think proper; HE shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; HE shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ..."

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline writes:
"I thought this posted, but apparently it didn't"

It did post. It just got lost in JakeD's multiple-post soliloquy around the same time.

And I don't see the GOP being much more than the party of "no" until at least after the 2010 elections.

Posted by: mnteng | June 30, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Sanford admits to MORE affairs!!!!! that is as terrible as making this poor man Senator Franken wait 6 months to be seated. RIP for the Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 30, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Another querk, if Gov. Palin ever gets elected -- assuming I am still around and "chrisfox8" has not made good on his threats to kill me -- I would have to point out that there's no provision in the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) to permit a female to become President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 writes:
"long distance release"

Good one. I'll have to remember to use that next time out ...

Posted by: mnteng | June 30, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

How much more could universal health care cost us?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

got to be the stupidest question of the day.

1. Obimbo has promised more and better for less. does this send any danger signals to anyone with a brain?

2. the entity that runs Amtrak, USPS, FEMA and other flops is the one that is going to this efficiently. Danger signal number 2.

3. It is inherent in this approach that there will be rationing. OK, let's debate that honestly. how much is Grandma's life worth?

4. Don't even start on who is going to pay for all this on top of the already splurged out Lib fantasy.

5. the scoring from CBO is that we spend more to cover fewer people. now that sounds like a True Lib program.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

No, as you know there is no Constitutional requirement for U.S. Senators to be "natural-born" citizens (only 30 years old, nine years a citizen, and live in the State).

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm still interested, but it's academic. I looked at the FEC reports for Norm Coleman, and it looks like by law he (and Frankin) only had to report activity through 2008. Of course, most senate campaigns would be over by the end of the year =)

Posted by: Kili | June 30, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

On Sunday, the citizens of Honduras woke up with one president and went to bed with an other. Manuel Zelaya was forced out of the country — replaced, with full backing from the Congress, the nation's courts, and its military with Interim President Robert Micheletti. (snip) In truth, it was much more of a last-ditch effort to protect Honduras' constitutional order and rule of law from a reckless populist.


Obambi on the wrong side again - as usual. why is he so fawning over despots?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I thought this posted, but apparently it didn't:

Now that the Democrats have their 60 vote super majority, and the Republicans can't simply block legislation by threatening filibuster, will the Republicans grow up and begin actually working to craft legislation, rather than simply opposing it?

Posted by: ceflynline | June 30, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

@Jake - But will it be the long form certificate? :-)

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 30, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Everything that drivl says is kookoo, so it's a waste of time to talking to it, just for those that are new here. also, it's a moonbat and a lunatic, just for good measure.


Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

So we finally have a Lib in the Senate who will agree that he is clown, or is it Joker? how long until the rest of them accept their accurate title?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Pawlenty will sign Franken's certification today:

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/06/pawlenty_will_s.php

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Welcome back, mibrooks27 : )

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I just hope Franken has the brains and courage to be an independent voice from this disastrous White House. Obama's approval rating plunged to a -2 this week and his insane free trade, craven pro-corporate and Wall Street economic policies are going to cost the Democrats dearly.

Just returned from 10 days fishing the Henry's Fork! No politics, no newspapers or television. The debate was over whether a PMD emerger, Flav or olive caddis hatch was what the fish were what the trout were keying in on. (It was the olive caddis, size #14, most evenings). Largest fish was a 24" monster RB, with several even larger doing a "long distance release". Wonderful time.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | June 30, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

drindl (Part II):

Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You're just stalling now.

Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.

Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!

Man in Black: Then make your choice.

Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?

Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]

Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.

Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.

Man in Black, Vizzini: [they drink ]

Man in Black: You guessed wrong.

Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, and falls dead to the right]

Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.

Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Now that the Republicans can no longer simply prevent legislation from going forward by threatening a filibuster, will they grow up and start actually working to craft legislation?

Posted by: ceflynline | June 30, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Kili:

Coleman conceded, so it's over. You still want the RNC and Romney PAC news story links? You could probably find them faster using Google.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Back to drindl:

Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.

Drindl (I mean, Vizzini): But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You've made your decision then?

Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?

Man in Black: Australia.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

mattadamsdietmanager writes
"BY CONCEDING COLEMAN REDEEMED THE REPUBLICANS BUT IT COUL BE TOO LATE!"

Some people are speculating that Sen Coleman has his eye on the 2010 MN Governor's race. Why he'd want the job is anyone's guess; Pawlenty is leaving a projected $4.4 billion budget shortfall for the next gov. Coleman also lost one Gov race already - in 1998 to Jesse Ventura.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"I think of it more like 'good' vs. 'evil' actually".

If you truly mean this - then, perhaps there are more effective ways to combat this "evil".

Or do you think of yourself as bearing witness? If so, your own blog would perhaps be more effective.

"I know that the RNC and Romney's PAC donated quite a bit (I just stated that I donated another $100) but he will get more if he announces an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Next question?"

I did a cursory search and could not find anything on this. Do you have a reference?

Unless he is bringing in funds - that is, keeping the core energized - continuing at this point is more destructive than constructive.

Posted by: Kili | June 30, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

COLEMAN did the right thing!

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 30, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

BY CONCEDING COLEMAN REDEEMED THE REPUBLICANS BUT IT COUL BE TOO LATE!

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 30, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Oh, that was disappointing! But, I understand the need to put this behind him. I still think that an appeal to the ROBERTS Supreme Court would have been a good play.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Kili asks
"On the Coleman/Franken struggle: what funds is Coleman using to support his campaign? Is he still getting any contributions?"

Yup. MPR reported today they've raised & spent nearly $50 million, combined. Coleman also just received FEC approval to spend campaign contributions on the other lawsuits in which he's involved.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Coleman CONCEDED THANK GOD!

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 30, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Coleman quits:

"Republican Norm Coleman has conceded to Democrat Al Franken, just hour after the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld Franken victory in the state's epic election contest.

...[A]t a mid-afternoon press conference outside his house Tuesday he told reporters it's time to end the long-standing race."


http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/30/supcoruling_senate/

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

What if I say "You are right"? Is that a "lie" as well?

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Kili:

I think of it more like "good" vs. "evil" actually -- I know that the RNC and Romney's PAC donated quite a bit (I just stated that I donated another $100) but he will get more if he announces an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

So, wait a minute, if "everything" I post is a lie (including that Gov. Pawlenty will sign the certification papers), does that mean he won't sign?! Or, is this current post a "lie" too? It's like that Prisoner's Dilemma!!!

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry to rain on your parade libs"

Do you interpret all political actions through a liberal/non-liberal framework?

I'm a graduate of Stanford, too: MS and PhD, Electrical Engineering. I am dismayed at the constant drumbeat by many in the comment section to give meaningless comments devoid of any intellectual effort except to spin political news as events in some grand liberal/conservative war.

On the Coleman/Franken struggle: what funds is Coleman using to support his campaign? Is he still getting any contributions?

Posted by: Kili | June 30, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, Gov. Pawlenty will have to sign certification papers for Franken now. The Secretary of State said he / she will sign too.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Everything that jaked says is a lie, so it's a waste of time to talking to him, just for those that are new here. also, he's a racist and a lunatic, just for good measure.

Posted by: drindl | June 30, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Secretary Seiblis (sp?) admited that no cost estimate has been provided for ANY of the proposals by Dems. Also, you don't have to look after older people like me and my wife (we have a solid retirement package, thank you very much).

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Great a comedian to join the other clowns in the Senate.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | June 30, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Jacked, How much more could universal health care cost us? Currently it is over 16% of the GDP and headed towards 20%. No, I can't tell you what the proposed reform will cost -- *it hasn't been proposed yet.*

When calculating the cost of the as-yet-to be-decided-upon health care reform we must start with what the current non-policy costs us as a country AND as individuals. These costs are direct costs and indirect, and it takes a bigger brain than yours or mine to gather this information accurately.

You say you are retired. Not so many years ago senior citizens had NO health coverage once they left the work force. We, as a society, said it was worth our while to look after older people like YOU. Private industry wouldn't cover old people so the Federal Government stepped up to the plate. You and your friends are lucky.
I know you can kick and grouse that Medicare is not perfect. We all know that, but we also know that we can't let Perfect be the enemy of Good.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! You get what you pay for with free legal advice. I will gladly leave it to the federal appellate specialists to decide those questions (I'd be surprised if the brief hasn't already been prepared). We'll find out in 15 minutes.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"Because there's always the UNITED STATES Supreme Court."

Surely a graduate of any reasonably respectable law school could read the ruling and summarize the grounds for appeal, what arguments the appelant might make, and perhaps even comment on the likelihood of the court accepting the case. My guess is you can't reach that bar.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Gallenod:

"political pary"?

bsimon:

Because there's always the UNITED STATES Supreme Court.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Whoops--didn't get that sentence right. Should be "Now if we could only elect more people whose working life consists of more that just working for a political pary, an elected official or being an elected official."

Gotta remember to proofread before posting. :)

Posted by: Gallenod | June 30, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Alleged Stanford Law grad says:
"Not sure why this is "almost certainly" the end of the road."

Read the ruling:
http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/current/OPA090697-6030.pdf

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

No, margaretmeyers, I just wanted you to admit on the other thread that there's no official "cost" to Obama's healthcare plan yet. Have a nice life though.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Another loss for America... Gonna be a big mess for the GOP to clean up once we take office again...

Posted by: Steve94 | June 30, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Not sure why this is "almost certainly" the end of the road. As Mr. Cillizza pointed out, Byrd and Kennedy aren't even voting. The U.S. Supreme Court won't even grant or deny cert. until October, so he can hang in there some more -- I just made another donation -- DON'T GIVE UP, Coleman!!!

https://client.campaignfinancial.com/colemanrecount

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Well, that's one issue resolve, and by unanimous decision instead of a one-vote majority split in ideological line. Most of the judges involved in this process were Republican appointees, so no one can say this was a partisan decision.

Now if we could only elect more people whose working life consists of either working for a political pary, an elected official or being an elected official. Government might be a bit more productive if we had more former business executives, community organizers, military servicemembers, teachers, doctors, and others with professional experience instead of just a lifelong devotion to their political party.

If nothing else, Franken brings some fresh blood to the mix. We'll just have to wait and see whether its a useful infusion or spilled on the floor.

Posted by: Gallenod | June 30, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead Norm APPEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(OBAMA & Dems laughing!! ha ha ha.... )HA HA HA...................................PLEASE APPEAL NORM............

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 30, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

jacked wants to see Franken's birth certificate -- the long form, mind you.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Let us hope that Coleman now has the decency to give up this hopeless fight. However, given the state of the republican party in general and the United States Senate in particular, I have to see it before I believe it. My guess is that Coleman will appeal to the US Supreme Court. Given their 5-4 majority in that body Republicans may have their best shot to actually get one of those Bush-Gore decisions. I've come to believe that the facts natter little to the Supreme Court. Since Roberts and Alito got there (Especially Roberts the great champion of the over dog) they just rule 5-4 for the conservatives, ea the Republicans.

Posted by: Opa2 | June 30, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

It's about time that Minnesota has a second Senator. Welcome, Sen. Franken! You're good enough, you're smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like you!

Posted by: JAJ1957 | June 30, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Coleman speaks at 3:00 central, Franken 3:30. Carried live here:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/tools/play/streams/news.asx

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Why should the Supreme Court waste its time with Coleman? Franken got more votes. Coleman is a sore loser.

Maybe he should "pray" some more.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

The earliest Franken could be seated is next week anyway with the Senate out of session. Coleman will hopefully announce that he will appeal to the UNITED STATES Supreme Court before that. Sorry to rain on your parade libs.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

This took 7 months too long. The GOP's tactics are almost as pathetic as their policies. ALMOST.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

It's about time and Al Franken should be sworn in immediatelty!!! ASAP!

But go ahead Republicans keep on alienating the Hispanic vote. Thanks so much you Supreme Court right wingers!
Go ahead Norm Coleman continue this mess and appeal to Supreme Court Norm!!! Thanks Norm Colman and Tim Pawlenty for makeing the Republicans look like sore loosers with no integrity!
Thanks also goes to Govenor Sanford and Senator Ensign for for being cheats and using tax payor money for their sexual explotes.

I bet the Democrats and the Obama Administration is laughing at all of this and the Republicans.
REST IN PEACE (RIP)Republicans for a long....................time.

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | June 30, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Finally, Chris!

Just like Norm Coleman, it's finally time to move on to covering all the absurdities of the political world (a none-to-subtle hint to provide Fixistos with their twice-weekly dose of Mouthpiece Theatre). Enquiring Fixistos are salivating!

Posted by: sverigegrabb | June 30, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company