Check out these interesting questions on the MN. SC decidion on Frankin!

[napi21]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-on-colemans-appeal-he-lost-franken-won-the-election.php

The big question now is what comes next. Will Coleman concede, or will he take another path -- as national GOP leaders like Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) have urged -- and take this to federal courts, where he might try to get an injunction against Franken receiving a certificate of election? And if Franken does get his certificate, will the Senate GOP attempt to filibuster its acceptance?

snip

The other possibility that they've floated throughout this process at various times is that it's impossible to truly know who won this election, and therefore the result should be thrown out ("set aside," in their words).

We'll see whether the national GOP goes to the mat any more than they already have for any or all of these claims, and how much longer this can get held up. Believe it or not, this is not actually yet the longest ongoing dispute over a Senate election since direct voting was brought in -- that "honor" belongs to the 1974 New Hampshire Senate race, which left the seat vacant through August 1975, when a temporary appointment was made, and then had a do-over election in September 1975.

I've known about the possibility of appealing to the SCOTUS and Coleman wanting a revote, but I sure never heard of the injunction OR the Senate GOP trying to fillibuster acceptance of the certificate!

[kestrel91316]

1. Thw RW WILL NOT ALLOW Franken to be seated. Expect every trick in

the book. And if they all fail, expect an attempt on his life by a "lone nut". They are playing for keeps.

[AlinPA]

3. They certainly are desperate.

[AlinPA]

2. If it doesn't get to the US SC (I believe it will), the the filibuster is definitely

a possibility, however I don't know if there are senate procedures to thwart a filibuster.

[napi21]

5. I don't think the SCOTUS would accept the case. Some of them are

still smarting from their 2000 decision. That doesn't preclude a fed injunction the halt Franken being seated until the SCOTUS resumes in the fall.

I'm not too worried about a fillibuster either. I suspect there are even a few Pubs who don't like this tac.

[AlinPA]

8. I can't see the SC US giving up a chance to seat one of their own.

[MrsMatt]

4. I'll be surprised if it goes to the federal Supreme Court

Norm may be an asshole, but he's put roots down here in MN, and I doubt he'd totally want to screw that up (I have a friend who lives a couple of doors down from Norm & Laurie). Plus, he already has a lobbyist job - that will pay the bills nicely.

[AlinPA]

7. The republicans will never give up on that senate election. They will pay his way.

[MineralMan]

6. It's FRANKEN, not Frankin. Please...

Let's at least get the names of our own correct, OK?

[alfredo]

9. The GOP just gave Coleman $1 million for his court fight.

[JDPriestly]

10. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution authorizes the states

to arrange for elections, but it also states that the Senate is the judge of the elections and qualifications of senators. The Senate can just go ahead and seat Franken. Coleman can contest the election, but the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision should be enough for the Senate to go ahead. That's my view. The Supreme Court would most likely have to adhere to the intent of the authors of the Constitution and permit the Senate to be the ultimate judge of the election of a senator.

Article I, Section 4 - Elections, Meetings

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
. . . .
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec4

I would argue that the Constitution specifically grants the authority to the state of Minnesota to hold the election and then bypasses federal court review to grant the authority to judge the election to the Senate. As I read these provisions, the only branch of the federal government to have jurisdiction to judge the election of a senator would be the Senate.

This is strictly a matter for the state of Minnesota and the Senate.