I'm Good Enough, I'm Strong Enough, and gosh darnit the people of MN like me

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Hmm. So...if a right-leaning court acts "for" a Democrat, they are being fair; {snip}

Well... you'd think a right-leaning court's decision in favor of a democrat would be less likely to be unfair, wouldn't you? For instance, had the same decision to stop all recounts been made in the Bush v. Gore case by a unanimous court (or Kennedy or O'Connor and the four "liberal" justices with the four other "conservative" justices dissenting) I supsect there'd have been little lasting talk of "stealing" the election.

In any event, I was more pointing out that it seems a bit odd to describe a decision as following "typical democrat policy" when most of those making the decision were recently appointed by Republicans.

--Philistine

[dcmdale]

Here is the thing about U.S. Election law: we know that there will always be elections that are too close to actually count with complete accuracy and certainty. It doesn't make any difference what the technology is or what the standard of care is. Some votes will always be questionable.

The solution that we have for that problem is to have clear process understood by both sides before the election and the fundamental rule has always been that courts should not change the process after the election when the court knows how the change will influence the election. Gore and Coleman were both arguing for changes in the standards after the election that they felt would swing the count their way.

If you support Gore's reasoning in 2000, you need to support Coleman's reasoning here. Under the "Every vote counts" argument of Gore, it would mean that absentee ballots from Coleman leaning counties that were signed by the voter and were obviously intended to be a valid vote, but lacked a counter-signing witness would be counted.

If, however, you believe that only votes that meet the strict legal criteria should count, you have to respect that Coleman lost.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Right, because we wouldn't want to be using an analogy that accurately portrayed events. That would just be wrong.

You do understand the concept of hypothetical questions, right?

Socratic method, and all that?

Maybe I overestimated the quality of your education?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Well... you'd think a right-leaning court's decision in favor of a democrat would be less likely to be unfair, wouldn't you?

Practically? Sure. Theoretically? Why? It should be the facts of the case that determine the ruling, not the party affiliation of the appellant(s).

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Gore and Coleman were both arguing for changes in the standards after the election that they felt would swing the count their way.

And Franken was not?!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123197800446483619.html

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Practically? Sure. Theoretically? Why? It should be the facts of the case that determine the ruling, not the party affiliation of the appellant(s).

Ostensibly all court decisions are based on the facts, but when there is room for interpretation then personal bias becomes a possible factor.

Republicans ruling in favor of a Democrat (or the reverse) makes the personal bias argument far less likely.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And Franken was not?!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123197800446483619.html

Actually, I don't see that argument made in that article. But that article was certainly very authoritative, "obvious, embarrassing violation of the Constitution."

Too bad the author was found to be wrong by judge after judge.

By state law there HAD to be a recount; the original count was too close. And while there were some judgement calls as to which ballots were included they opted to include more, not less. And there were none of the "hanging chad" issues that existed in Florida; Minnesota specifically changed their rules after that debacle to do their best to avoid them. Can there be a perfect election? Doubtful, unless you have only one voter.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Republicans ruling in favor of a Democrat (or the reverse) makes the personal bias argument far less likely.

Mmm...I don't see it.

It just makes it easier for people to convince themselves that bias was less likely, IMO. It says nothing definite about the actual presence or absence of bias.

To me, an unbiased court is just less likely to make biased judgements. I guess it depends on which way you look at it.


As for the WSJ article's point...remember that the Florida Supreme Court did much the same thing as the Minnesota Supreme Court. The difference may be nothing more than that one ruling was appealed to SCOTUS and the other was not. Had it been, it very well might have resulted in the same equal-protection outcome...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Socratic method, and all that?

Yeah, and look what became of him!

For the rest of it - it seems very much that various parties complain about processes only when it's their ox that is Gored.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

You do understand the concept of hypothetical questions, right?

Socratic method, and all that?

Yeah, if only you could get me to answer "Yes" or "No" to all of your questions.

I will grant the conclusion that if the Colman decision and the Gore decision were very similar or the same, being agreeable over the former and outraged over the latter is a hypocritical stance.

However, I don't agree with your a priori, however many mugging references you come up with.

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And Franken was not?!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123197800446483619.html

In contrast to the case in Florida, the "found" ballots in question were blind. That is, they were absentee ballots where the vote they contained was unknown until after validity had been determined. Some 900 of these ballots were stipulated by both campaigns as valid and a court determined that some 300 additional were valid. Once Coleman agreed that the ballots were valid, he wasn't entitled to withdraw his approval once the contents of the vote were known. He probably lost the election with those 900 ballots.

Yes, there were irregularities. The courts acknowledge this. There are always irregularities in elections. Did the irregularities tend to favor Franken? Probably. But Coleman's people had the opportunity to object before the irregular votes were intermingled and they did not. Once the irregular votes were mixed in (in accordance with the law), it became impossible to reconstruct which votes belonged to who. Now that it is apparent that they should have objected, it is too late. While you can argue from statistics that Franken was the probable beneficiary, courts don't work that way. You snooze, you lose.

Coleman's suggested remedy was to count similar irregular votes (never opened) from other areas of the state. That doesn't work. Equal Protection was satisfied when he was given the opportunity to object to the original irregular votes.

Don't get me wrong. I am not thrilled with having another Democrat vote in the Senate. I don't like the result at all. This is a case were better organization won an election: better training for Coleman's team might have excluded many irregular ballots. Certainly, a little more effort on Coleman's part might have brought 400 more voters out that night. When we are talking about margins this small elections can be decided by such transient factors as a thunderstorm keeping a few voters home or what's on TV that night.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Yeah, and look what became of him!

Hey, I was there, he got what he desoived, the dirty old man!

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Yeah, if only you could get me to answer "Yes" or "No" to all of your questions.

Tsk! How little you understand the elenchus...

However, I don't agree with your a priori, however many mugging references you come up with.

I realize that you disgree. For the rest, pot, meet kettle: Biting insults do not an argument make, either, no matter how much they may impress girls who think that Jon Stewart is the wit of the century.

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Did the irregularities tend to favor Franken? Probably. But Coleman's people had the opportunity to object before the irregular votes were intermingled and they did not.

Wait---so Franken won because he was just slightly more skilled at fraud and manipulation than Coleman? And the country must shrug and accept that this sort of thing makes a Senator these days?

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Wait---so Franken won because he was just slightly more skilled at fraud and manipulation than Coleman? And the country must shrug and accept that this sort of thing makes a Senator these days?

Welcome to the reality of American Politics, but it is hardly new. I suspect that you are old enough to know about 1960?

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It should be the facts of the case that determine the ruling, not the party affiliation of the appellant(s).

I absolutely agree with you that it should be. When the court is acting contrary to its political bent, then I have a better feeling that it is.

Coleman arguments are a clear invitation to the Minn. Supreme Court to emulate the disgraceful behavior of the Fla Supreme Court in Gore. His arguments are not legally sufficient, but are strong enough to provide a "hook" for the court to hang its coat on if it wanted to manipulate the election.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I suspect that you are old enough to know about 1960?

Would that be A.D. or B.C.?

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I absolutely agree with you that it should be. When the court is acting contrary to its political bent, then I have a better feeling that it is.

Well, but "feelings"...are not proof.

That sort of reminds me of the way my mom always groused about how her mother---who was the town's schoolteacher---always bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of favoritism toward her own child. Because she treated her much harder than any other child in the class as a result...

Coleman arguments are a clear invitation to the Minn. Supreme Court

Except someone would need to deliver the invitation first. Coleman and his minions have given up, have they not? Anyone else would lack "standing" surely?

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Would that be A.D. or B.C.?

You forget that the quadrennial cycle is broken by the lack of a Year 0 so 1960 B.C. was not an election year.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, but "feelings"...are not proof.

That sort of reminds me of the way my mom always groused about how her mother---who was the town's schoolteacher---always bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of favoritism toward her own child. Because she treated her much harder than any other child in the class as a result...

I have no doubt that your mother's frustration was well founded.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Except someone would need to deliver the invitation first. Coleman and his minions have given up, have they not? Anyone else would lack "standing" surely?

The invitation was delivered in the briefs to the court.

Here's Coleman's problem, even assuming arguendo that he can establish a statistical likelihood that he received more legal votes than his opponent, what is the legal remedy? There is no evidence that recounting the votes again will help Coleman. While you may have evidence that a certain number of votes should not have been counted, there is no way to determine now which ballots came in those envelopes, so the court would have to guess at the votes--something that courts uniformly refuse to do. If we granted you standing, are you really arguing that the remedy should be to open ballots that clearly don't meet legal requirements?

This is the essence of Coleman's problem. While it is easy, for you and me at least, to sympathize with a feeling of unfairness, because Coleman's team didn't take the procedural steps necessary to preserve the ability to figure out the appropriate relief, he is out of luck. It is a similar situation to: A car runs a red light and hits you. You get the car repaired and sue the driver. The court finds against the other driver and turns to you to get the receipts for the repairs and you say, "I threw them away."

I don't know whether Coleman can even get as far as showing a statistical likelihood that he got the most legal votes. The court didn't really rule on that because it would be irrelevant under the law anyway. As I was taught very early in law school, the legal system is less concerned about "fairness" than about efficient, predictable resolution of disputes. Regardless which way this decision went, someone was going to feel unfairly treated, but at some point you have to say, "Done."

[Inquartata]

Maybe he should get his supporters to take to the streets and protest, Iranian style, demanding a "do over".

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Maybe he should get his supporters to take to the streets and protest, Iranian style, demanding a "do over".

Have fun... post the video... remember that you aren't pretty enough to garner international sympathy if you get shot

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Have fun... post the video... remember that you are pretty enough to garner international sympathy if you get shot

Either you inadvertently left an "n't" out of that sentence, or you should see an optometrist as soon as possible.