Rusty silver linings

[Tex]

Scott Johnson of Powerline critiques the forgoing article on the constitutionality of the Minnesota recount. He disagrees that it was unconstitutional, but agrees on other points.

I agree with Professor Paulsen that the Canvassing Board and the Court may have erred on occasion during the recount. I emphatically agree with Professor Paulsen's derogation of the Coleman campaign's performance during the recount. See my post "Overtime in the Minnesota Senate election." But I don't yet see the constitutional defects that Professor Paulsen has identified.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Scott Johnson of Powerline critiques the forgoing article on the constitutionality of the Minnesota recount. He disagrees that it was unconstitutional, but agrees on other points.

And here is Scott Johnson disagreeing with Tex and saying Franken clearly did not steal the election. Sorry to burst your bubble, Tex. Republicans retain their monopoly on election stealing for now.

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...MwOTg3YWViY2U=

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And here is Scott Johnson disagreeing with Tex and saying Franken clearly did not steal the election. Sorry to burst your bubble, Tex. Republicans retain their monopoly on election stealing for now.

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...MwOTg3YWViY2U=

Yeah, I read that on Powerline a day or two ago. It all depends on how you define "steal" and Johnson is trying to be generous (something you could certainly learn).

What it boils down to is, Franken was more aggressive about getting more Democrat-friendly counties to use more lenient ballot-counting techniques, while doing everything to stop Republican counties from doing so. Coleman's campaign was asleep at the wheel.

It's unfortunate that a winner gets declared based on who has the better lawyers. That's still cheating in my mind, even if Scott Johnson doesn't think so.

[MikeWaters]

Shouldn't this thread be titled "Tarnished Silver Linings"?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yeah, I read that on Powerline a day or two ago. It all depends on how you define "steal" and Johnson is trying to be generous (something you could certainly learn).

What it boils down to is, Franken was more aggressive about getting more Democrat-friendly counties to use more lenient ballot-counting techniques, while doing everything to stop Republican counties from doing so. Coleman's campaign was asleep at the wheel.

It's unfortunate that a winner gets declared based on who has the better lawyers. That's still cheating in my mind, even if Scott Johnson doesn't think so.

Franken should have found crappy lawyers. That way, Tex wouldn't think he was cheating. That's the problem with your party, right there, Tex. You guys always find incompetent people to run things. Then you get angry when the other side finds intelligent, competent people to run things. You don't know what to call it, so you just say they are cheating.

Amusing.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Shouldn't this thread be titled "Tarnished Silver Linings"?

...

Originally Posted by Tex

(Yes I know silver doesn't technically rust. It's a metaphor, get over it.)

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Franken should have found crappy lawyers. That way, Tex wouldn't think he was cheating. That's the problem with your party, right there, Tex. You guys always find incompetent people to run things. Then you get angry when the other side finds intelligent, competent people to run things. You don't know what to call it, so you just say they are cheating.

Amusing.

Having good lawyers is not de facto cheating. When lawyers use the law as a weapon, to enable some votes to be preferred over others by application of uneven standards, that's cheating.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Having good lawyers is not de facto cheating. When lawyers use the law as a weapon, to enable some votes to be preferred over others by application of uneven standards, that's cheating.

Franken's lawyers applied the law. That is why they will win. They followed the statute, and when applied, it results in a victory for Franken. You can get as worked up about it as you want to, but the legal result in this case has been clear for months. You may recall we previously sparred about the inevitability of the legal conclusion in this case months ago. You were as wrong then as you are now. Franken's win isn't the result of cheating. It is the result of the application of the law to the facts at hand.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Franken's lawyers applied the law. That is why they will win. They followed the statute, and when applied, it results in a victory for Franken. You can get as worked up about it as you want to, but the legal result in this case has been clear for months. You may recall we previously sparred about the inevitability of the legal conclusion in this case months ago. You were as wrong then as you are now. Franken's win isn't the result of cheating. It is the result of the application of the law to the facts at hand.

Just because skillful exploitation of the law is legal, it doesn't make it right. The voters deserve better than to have their elections decided by lawyers who know how to manipulate the system after their votes have been cast.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Just because skillful exploitation of the law is legal, it doesn't make it right. The voters deserve better than to have their elections decided by lawyers who know how to manipulate the system after their votes have been cast.

Really? Then you should take it up with Coleman who filed suit in this election, after the votes which were cast and counted revealed he had lost. What would your proposal have been, Glen, that didn't involve any lawyers being involved in deciding an election with fewer than 500 votes separating the candidates?