« Bush and Cheney's Bogus Journey | Unreadable Nixters's Blog | Bill Richardson just gets no break »
To seat or not to seat
Thinking about GOP refusal to seat Franken, it occurred to me:
Why can't Democrats refuse to seat all Republicans?
I mean it. Refuse to seat all Republicans and see how much easier it will become to move forward.
A lot more good will get done a lot faster, and none of all those bad things we have come to associate with Republicans (aren't all bad things associated with Republicans? hehe, a rhetorical question).
Seat just the Democrats to start working instead of constant filibustering. That's what I say.
Why can't Democrats refuse to seat all Republicans?
I mean it. Refuse to seat all Republicans and see how much easier it will become to move forward.
A lot more good will get done a lot faster, and none of all those bad things we have come to associate with Republicans (aren't all bad things associated with Republicans? hehe, a rhetorical question).
Seat just the Democrats to start working instead of constant filibustering. That's what I say.
Advertisement
If Coleman files a lawsuit regarding the election results, the State of Minnesota cannot officially validate it until the controversies have been resolved in court. Unfortunately, the Republicans have a valid reason to oppose Franken getting seated. They do risk looking even more like obstructionists by playing this game, if the reasons that Coleman bases his lawsuit upon are determined to be frivolous. I have doubts as to the Constitutionality of opposing Burris' Illinois appointment, and can assure you that a stupid trick by the majority party to refuse to seat lawfully elected minority party members would be laughed out of Federal Court almost instantaneously.
January 4, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not so sure of that. The burden shifts in court from even to Coleman. Coleman has to prove things by a preponderance of the evidence, unless the statute specifically calls for a de novo review and I do not think that us the case. But you could be right on this.
My bet, because both sides will end up with top top drawer attorneys, Franken keeps the lead.
Certification could be voided by the court pending litigation. But courts do not like to interfere with the electoral process. They really don't unless you are talking about the Republican pigs who controlled the Supreme Court in 2000.
Legally, and politically, I now think the US Senate would be making a mistake by not seating Burris and Reid looks like he is softening his position on this.
January 4, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Senate is the legislature, it makes laws, and thus trumps any court decisions.
Better yet, these court challenges will take at least a day, so the majority party could prepare lots of bills and run them all through on that day.
And if that is done simultaneously in all legislatures around the country where Democrats have majority, the effect will be tremendous.
Lots of laws can be changed, all for the good of the country.
January 5, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink