Senate Republican leaders appear willing to go to the mat for former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), but it’s unclear whether Coleman wants to go to the mat for himself.
The Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to rule within weeks on whether Democrat Al Franken bested Coleman in the long- contested 2008 Senate race. Republicans said they were ready to protest any Democratic leadership attempts to seat Franken — if the court rules him the victor — until Coleman either exhausts his appeals process in the federal courts or decides to throw in the towel.
“I personally think it’d be a mistake to seat anybody while the appeals are pending,” National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) said. “I believe we would support him in whatever efforts he made to have this finally decided by a court.”
Cornyn added that Coleman might have a better shot in federal court, given his argument that the state’s recount — which ultimately put Franken 312 votes ahead of Coleman — used inconsistent criteria for deciding which votes to count.
Still, Cornyn and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) said they would leave the decision on whether to push the issue into federal courts to Coleman and his lawyers.
“We have a lot of confidence in Norm’s judgment and the judgment of his legal team, and if they believed ... that they have an argument that ought to be heard by the federal Supreme Court, my guess is, there’s going to be a lot of support for them trying to get it heard there,” Thune said.
One senior Senate Republican aide added that the GOP Conference supports Coleman because it believes he has taken a reasonable course of action given the closeness of the race and difficulties of the recount. If Franken were seated, Senate Democrats would attain a 60-seat, filibuster-proof margin.
“At no point has the Conference felt as though Sen. Coleman was simply delaying the inevitable or motivated by anything other than securing an accurate vote count,” the aide said. “So they will undoubtedly trust his judgment going forward.”
Republicans stopped short Wednesday of threatening an outright filibuster of any Democratic attempt to seat Franken. Thune noted that the issue has not been discussed in the Conference recently.
“I guess that’s a bridge we’ll cross when we come to it,” Thune said. “It’s not something that we’ve discussed. ... There’ll be a lot of consideration and discussion if and when that happens.”
But it may not come to that. Sources close to Coleman say the former Senator would likely give up his legal battle and accept defeat if the Minnesota Supreme Court decides in Franken’s favor. That’s because Coleman anticipates that Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) would ultimately sign Franken’s certification papers.
If the court rules against Franken, it would not likely declare Coleman the winner but instead would either send the matter back to the lower courts or order another recount. There is also an outside chance that it could order another election.
Coleman is said to view his case as a matter of fairness based on Minnesota election law, which is expansive. The Republican is said to believe so strongly that he is in the right — and that the results so far have resulted in the disenfranchisement of millions of Minnesota voters — that he was willing to risk his political standing over the long term in order to see it through.
Still, sources say Coleman, who is vying for a second term, does not have the same appetite to pursue his case in federal court as he did for his state court battle.
“He will be done” if he loses at the state Supreme Court, one Republican predicted.
But Senate Democrats aren’t so sure that Pawlenty — who announced this week that he would not seek a third term as governor in 2010 — will follow through on his pledge to formally certify the winner in the race because he is widely believed to be positioning himself for a 2012 presidential run.
“As the [Minnesota] Supreme Court has made clear in previous cases, the governor is obligated under state law to sign the election certification,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “We hope that the governor follows through with that obligation and doesn’t let any possible presidential campaign ideas get in the way of what’s best for the people of Minnesota.”
At a news conference Tuesday, Pawlenty appeared to leave himself some wiggle room if the court stopped short of ordering him to sign the certification.
“I’m going to do whatever the court says. If the court directs me to sign that certificate, I will,” Pawlenty told reporters.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_140/news/35511-1.html
Paul's Boutique
Crazy that we're halfway through 2009 and this is still going!
1I guess I sort of vaguely thought I'd heard Franken had won, but I guess not.
2The irony of all this, if it was the reverse, and the Republican was ahead by 300 votes, each side would smoothly switch taken up the arguments of the other side, all without a hint of embarrassment. It is the hypocrisy of politicians that amuses/astounds me
3I'm not a huge fan of politicians, but I think that in many cases if a situation could be reversed, each side would switch arguments. What politicians do is acted out in public, but I don't think they're so much more hypocritical than the rest of us. If they are SO much more hypocritical, why have we kept them in jobs?
4money, the mothers milk of politics. look at our senate, it is more like a "House of Lords", with all those millionaires that got those millions by inheritance for the most part. Mc'Cain- Feingold which more accurate should be called the incumbents protection act, was the final nail in that coffin.
5If we feel they're such a bunch of hypocrites yet elect them repeatedly to represent us, we're worse.
6About a third of Senate members are millionaires, I think about a fourth of House members are. If we don't like it, we can always change it, but we've been electing rich people to make our laws for a very long time. I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that we shouldn't feel that we're any better than the people WE elect.
Steph, I am a great believer in the electoral process, and that every society that has popular elections get the type of governance they deserve. I find it unsettling that an uninformed vote counts the same as a informed vote, and that their are more uninformed voters then informed voters, but that is part of a democratic system as well.
7So, our leaders are rich hypocrites and most voters uninformed. And we think we should spread this system throughout the world.
8Yes Steph I do. To quote Winston Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
9Seems to me we should wait until we do a better job than constantly electing people to whom we feel morally superior, casting ballots with fellow voters we feel don't know much.
10Steph, that is why elections have consequences. What do you suggest we do as we "wait", exactly?
11Work with other countries as they are?
12Ignore human rights violations, genocide, you can not be serious.
13I can see the pronouncement now, " We of Europeans and those of European decent have not worked out all the kinks in how a democratically elected government will work,so rather put such burdens upon you, just hang in there, and as soon as we come up with a system you are capable of handling we will let you know. In the meantime just don't piss of you current king or dictator." I will let you make that speech Steph, maybe at the UN as a start.
14That isn't what I got from what Steph was saying, Grandpa.
I think what she is saying is that maybe we should work with other governments to come together on common goals and try to sway them to our way of thinking rather than dictating to them how they should run their countries or trying to force democracy down their throats.
I am not a mind reader though so I could be wrong and that might not be what she is trying to say at all, but she did use the phrase "work with"
15We were speaking of spreading democracy.
16We can speak out against human rights violations and genocide and but NOT tell other people they should adopt our system of goverment. One can successfully do the first without the second.
Grandpa: Steph, that is why elections have consequences. What do you suggest we do as we "wait", exactly?
stephley: Work with other countries as they are?
Where do we draw the line as to human rights violations?
17Interesting question, considering that human rights violations problem we have with all those detainees we have.
But when we're doing the 'do as we say not as we do' thing, there's no reason why governments can't speak to governments. We use sanctions all the time, trade threats. "Spreading democracy" isn't required when speaking out, encouraging, or making veiled threats.
18"Interesting question, considering that human rights violations problem we have with all those detainees we have."
God, how i hate "moral equivalence" arguments. Since we have beaten this topic to death, any further comments would be redundant.
19
I knew it.
20This should have ended long ago. It's time for Coleman to bow out.
21Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.