Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (485939)	6/5/2009 11:59:54 AM
From: michael97123	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573413

Norm Coleman is a genius according to inoode. He lost an election by a vote but then proceeded to ruin whatever career he had left. Dont these guys know that when Nancy said "just say no", she was talking about girls keeping their legs crossed, not repubs being in denial about everything.

To: bentway who wrote (485939)	6/5/2009 12:01:19 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1573413

Coleman’s other option is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Most legal observers agree that the court is highly unlikely to wade into the electoral morass. Foley notes, however, that back in 2000 most such experts strongly believed that the Supreme Court wouldn’t intervene in Bush v. Gore. He’s asking the justices to ignore state rules pertaining to which absentee ballots are counted. I haven't followed this case at all. But it seems to me there is only one correct way to could absentee ballots, and that is the way that includes all of them which were timely filed. So, if they are refusing to do this (and I don't know exactly what the deal is), how would it NOT be a constitutional issue, potentially worthy of Supreme Court involvement? Following is an exceprt of a WSJ opinion piece that seems to understand the issue: Case in point: the panel's dismal handling of absentee ballots. Early in the recount, the Franken team howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. We warned at the time that this was dangerous territory, designed to pressure election officials into accepting rejected ballots after the fact. Yet instead of shutting this Franken request down, or early on issuing a clear set of rules as to which absentees were valid, the state Supreme Court and the canvassing board oversaw a haphazard process by which some counties submitted new batches to be included in the tally, while other counties did not. The resulting additional 933 ballots were largely responsible for Mr. Franken's narrow lead. During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6,500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933. The three judges then finally defined what constituted a "legal" absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials. But the panel only applied these standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional absentees that the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed only about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now "illegal" according to the panel's own ex-post definition.</ub> How is this not an "equal protection" issue that the Supreme Court would review?