A Minnesota court has declared that Al Franken received the most votes in the November election and is entitled to a state election certificate validating him as the winner of the Senate seat.

The court found that "the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the November 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately," the judges wrote. "There is no evidence of a systematic problem of disenfranchisement in the state's election system, including in its absentee-balloting procedures."

Norm Coleman is appealing the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/minnesota_senate

higher courts ad infinitum.

When Coleman was ahead by 215 votes after the inital recounts he urged Franken to concede and not pursue any legal action.  What a hypocrite!!

BTW, Coleman, Franken and Paul Wellstone -- Jews.
God Bless them Lutherans.  I may have to start eating lutefisk.

after all he is wanting to deprive Coleman of the same legal due process that is now ruling him to be the winner. If the situation was reversed he would have done the same thing.

Whoever ultimately is declared the winner, the state of Minnesota is the loser. I couldn't think of two bigger douches ever running for office. The real shame is that one of them(most likely Franken) is going to be one of only 100 US senators. His vote will mean as much as McCain's, Kerry's or any of the other 97 senators. What a country.

as Coleman did when he had a slight edge.

Say what you will about Franken's views, he is a Harvard grad, unlike Bill O'Reilly who claims to be a Harvard grad but, in reality, went to the Kennedy School of Gov't. at Harvard.  Any yutz with ears can get into the Kennedy school - as O'Reilly proves.

-- Modified on 4/13/2009 6:53:14 PM

in Jim Bunning....But at least he was a good pitcher, and Pete Rose said he had trouble hitting against him...

who was POTUS.

will you concede that Franken is at best a turd sandwich?

They are both capitalist's lackeys.

As I have said before, you have higher courts exactly for the reason that sometimes lower court make a mistake.

That is the only reason why there are higher courts.

I have lost in appellate courts and won in the state Supreme Court.  If I had quite at level two, the wrong result would have been the final word.

To say "ad infinitum" is just silly.  This is the SECOND appeal.  One has to be math challenged to the Nth degree to say that 2 is infinity.  I seem to remember it being pretty close to 1.

When something is this important, why not get the word from the highest court available?  we pay millions of dollars in each state to have such a court for important cases.

What is wrong with using them?

They are both running dog capitalist's lackeys and there is no God. lol

I am interested in Moosie's opinion of Franken. Not whether or not he is better than Coleman, that's like saying TJ is better than Xfean(or vice versa), but what he really thinks about Franken.

Cmon Moosie, enquiring minds want to know.

Well, I wouldn't call him a turd sandwich, lol, but I was suprised he won (well, not "officially" yet), as he doesn't come across as very likeable, (even though I probably agree with most of his views)...

at least you agree he isn't very likeable. Probably the understatement of the year, but I'll take what I can get. lol

"that's like saying TJ is better than Xfean(or vice versa)"


 I can't imagine any world where TJ wouldn't be better than xfean..

and he pitched a perfect game, but it was only against a really bad middle 60s Mets team

punt it back to the state courts and it starts all over again  -- ad infinitum, or until Franken's term is over.

Pelosi, Reid and Franken. He is exactly what we need in the Senate, another clown.

You say the Supreme court can kick it back to the lower courts and start all over again, ad infinitum.

If that happens, it would prove the lower courts were wrong, or it would not have been sent back.

Do you think it is better to have it delayed another frew months or to settle for the wrong result.

Even then, "ad infinitum" is a hell of an exaggeration.  As a matter of coincidence, I am arguing today in a court of appeal for the second time on a case that had been sent back.  This is the sixth court - 2 state, 3 prior feds, and back.

Six is not exactly infinity.  The only reason it is that extremely high number of six is BECAUSE there was a mistake.

No one still have ever come close to answering my question - If it could be the wrong result, why settle for a lower court's opinion

Sounds like it. Reagan was a "B" actor rather than a hack.

B is just above hack on the acting scale huh?

...rather than a turd sandwitch you referred as cow pie!

a moose pie.

The US Supreme Court can also decline to hear a case if it determines that there is no federal issue at stake.

I absolutely agree...couldn't have said it better...

Yes, the Supreme Ct can decline a case, and it may do so even if it presents an issue.  

However, the purpose of the court is to ask it to review your case if you think it was wrongly decided.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing legal options.  Indeed, the Supreme Court only accepts about 100 cases per year, and turns down thousands of requests to hear cases.  But this does not mean there was any improper in seeking review.

Many of the Democrats were rooting silently against Franken. Nothing like a flaming leftist to crush the momentum of their recent victories. Their agenda has a much better chance of being pushed through without a guy that will stick out like a sore thumb.

There will be no shortage of ammunition for conservative talk with this embarrassment in the halls of Congress.

Brownback, DeMint, Imhoffe, Vitter, Coburn, etc., you're complaining about ONE real left of center guy...

The GOP senators resemble the 700 Club (NOT the good 700 club, which would be a 3 game series in bowling), sadly I'm referring to 700 Club as in the looney Pat Robertson organization...

Are you that familiar with Al Franken's politics?  Please enlighten me.