Coleman vs. Coleman

I admit that I'm biased because I used to work in the MN court system, but I think the present court is doing a terrific and even speedy job. Remember that the Coleman campaign threw the kitchen sink at this with many (dozens?) of different kinds of claims, each to be proven or disproven. The court can't just say, "We're bored, so we're just not going to take evidence on your other claims." The court knows that unless a proper record is made and every claim considered and ruled upon at great length, an appellate court could throw it back. They've heard a tremendous amount of evidence and produced prodigious opinions and decisions. No, this court is going to cross every t and dot every i and make sure that its final decision is as impregnable as the interim decisions have been.

Dbomp is right. The court is moving as quickly as a court can. Due process is slow, especially when demanded by a deep-pocketed litigant. You can blame the rules (which created the incentive for Coleman's team), but you can't blame the court.

..should not be how slow the court is moving, but why can't the Franken be seated as an interim senator, with the understanding that he could be replaced if the final judicial decision (after all sides have exhausted their appeals) goes against him. I realize there may be rules now against it, but I think they need to change, or any losing candidate can de facto stop the winner from taking office for a long, long time.

I say this as a lawyer who's favorite part of the job is writing, but I don't think laypeople fully understand how time consuming the briefing process is. I submitted a 24 page brief (doublespaced) a couple of weeks ago that addressed three main arguments -- it essentially took me two weeks of working on very little else to draft it, and there were no serious problems requiring a substantial rework along the way. And I already had about 75% of the research done! Plus, a lot of the work in the drafting process really can only be done by one person, at least if you want the most effective brief possible (drafting-by-committee never works well). As an exercise, let's consider everything that has to be done to create and file a typical brief: - Read and analyze the other side's brief that you are responding to. - Pull the authorities that they cite to make sure they say what the other side says. - Figure out how you are going to respond. - Do the necessary research to indentify authorities that will support your argument. - Draft, edit and revise the brief. - Distribute the draft to the client/bosses/other lawyers and incorporate any revisions. - Do whatever research is necessary to support any revised arguments. - Proofread the brief. Repeatedly. - Check the cites in the brief to make sure that they are good law and don't cite/aren't cited by any cases that could bite you. - Put the brief in the right format. - File it -- this could mean manually going to the courthouse in a lot of states. Considering the number of briefs that have been filed in this case and the complexity involved with them, I'm a bit amazed that they've done so much in a couple of months.

Hey, don't blame Minnesota courts for the way this Coleman thing has been dragged out. TPM has done a good job of covering the way his lawyers have questioned ballots, suggested that ballots that were correctly rejected shouldn't be, questioned totals, suggested recounts in certain areas, you name it. Every couple of days or so there's another ruling and then another motion by the Coleman folks. It's not our fault he can't be persuaded to accept reality -- and besides, this whole case is an effort by the Republican party to keep the Democrats from having another senator in their majority.