Minnesota SC rules AL FRANKEN the winner of the 2008 Senate election

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#1
The Minnesota Supreme Court has handed down its much-expected ruling in the heavily-litigated Minnesota Senate race from 2008 -- and it's a unanimous one -- deciding against Republican former Sen. Norm Coleman's appeal of his defeat in the election trial and affirming the lower court's verdict that Democratic comedian Al Franken is the legitimate winner of the race.
The courts finds that "Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota." This means that when Franken is ultimately seated, the Democrats will have 60 seats and be able to beat any Republican filibuster if they stay completely united (though good luck with that, obviously.)
It's been seven and a half months since Election Day, and five and a half months since the seat went vacant after Coleman's term expired -- but the state's process of recounts and litigation is now over, barring the unlikely event of a higher authority stepping in and forcing them to do more. Franken has won by 312 votes, out of roughly 2.9 million -- a difference of 0.011%.
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?
Minnesota Supreme Court Rules On Coleman's Appeal: He Lost, Franken Won The Election | TPMDC

Democrats now have 60 senators, a filibuster-proof majority assuming they all vote the same.
 
#2
..is that including Specter as well? Anyway - seems they can be trusted to vote the same way on presidential power and the rule of law, at least to some extent. Have anyone started talking about frustrating the President on extraordinary rendition, and so on, yet..?
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#3
Well, if he loses democratic approval, he'll lose his primary because of how unpopular he is (only 50% of Penn Dems like him). So he'll suck it up.
 
#4
Right, Specter is invested in appealing to democrats in general.. ..but he broke with the republicans because he can't go with their program - while what he's pushed in committee and so on is pretty much what a fairly large part of the democratic senators have pushed from the beginning. ..But I guess we'll see if that's allowed now that the party actually is in power..

I suppose.. Specter might be an indicator of what takes place. If he's incompatible with both parties - at least when it comes to committee work and civil liberties - then it's a description of how actual centrism isn't involved any more.. But I wonder how it plays out..
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#5
the left will not vote for him if he opposes what he currently does. Since they don't select a president in 2010 they can and will stay home. He only won in 2004 by 2%. He's screwed if he doesn't scamper left.
 
#6
:) mm. But what is "left" going to be, with Obama taking flak for perpetuating Bush- policies.. I'm imagining some sort of clash with the Democratic leadership over this - so what will the DNC believe will be embraced by the voters..?