About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

AP splits hairs in reporting Minn. Supreme Court ruling

June 30, 2009 2:49 pm ET by Jamison Foser

Here's how the AP reported on the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Al Franken:

Coleman's campaign didn't immediately return a call for comment. Nor did Gov. Tim Pawlenty, whose signature is required on the election certificate Franken needs to be seated.

Pawlenty, a Republican, has said he would sign the certificate if ordered to do so by the court. The court's ruling stopped short of explicitly ordering the governor to sign the document, saying only that Franken was "entitled" to it.

That's some pretty fine hair-splitting.

UPDATE: And here's how Chris Cillizza describes Pawlenty's comments from Sunday: "On Sunday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) indicated he was inclined to sign the certificate of election for Franken if the state's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Democrat."

Well, no, Pawlenty didn't say he was "inclined" to sign the certificate. Here's what he said: "I'm going to follow the direction of the court, John. We expect that ruling any day now. I also expect them to give guidance and direction as to the certificate of election. I'm prepared to sign it as soon as they give the green light. ... I'm not going to defy an order of the Minnesota Supreme Court. That would be a dereliction of my duty."

That's rather more definitive than "inclined."

Tags: Associated Press, Chris Cillizza

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by BillJ-MN (June 30, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
      1  
      Congratulations Senator Franken.

      I'm sure you will represent me well in Washington.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (June 30, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
      1  
      This ongoing insanity makes me wonder if Franken will be able to sue Coleman for lost wages. After all, he's technically been kept from his job for six months at this point.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bruce1ace (June 30, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
        2
      Really the report is unfair to Pawlenty's position as MMFA has highlighted.

      This gives the Democrats 60 Senate votes. I wonder if they really wanted the responsibility that comes with that?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BillJ-MN (June 30, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
        4  
        The 60 vote threshold has always been an overstated factor. Neither party, but especially the Democrats, has ever been able to get all of its members to march in lockstep.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (June 30, 2009 6:44 pm ET)
          2  
          When it really matters (i.e. when it has to do with how much money the rich has), the republicans march in absolute lockstep.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bruce1ace (June 30, 2009 11:06 pm ET)
             
          I tend to agree with you, however politicians do use the threshold as an excuse to not do things. Now they will need another excuse if they don't want to vote for something. The left will not tolerate a stalled political agenda, especially now.

          All the talk about a filibuster proof 60 for years and years, I doubt the true believers in the liberal agenda are interested in viewing it the way you described now that it's been achieved.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by kfraz43 (July 01, 2009 9:52 am ET)
               
            I agree with you that there will be more pressure from progressives, and possibly more from the WH as well, and some of that pressure may actually find its way to the floor. I also agree that it will be more difficult for a Dem to vote against the caucus, but this Dem congress has proven itself to be pretty unruly when it comes to consensus.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (June 30, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
      1  
      Coleman has conceded now so there shouldn't be any question of Pawlenty signing.
      Report Abuse