MSNBC's Brewer suggested there is "a cloud over Franken" because lawsuit or filibuster could impede efforts to seat him in Senate
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Contessa Brewer suggested that there is "a cloud over" Al Franken because a potential legal challenge by Sen. Norm Coleman or filibuster by Sen. John Cornyn could impede efforts to seat Franken in the Senate. Additionally, Brewer said that despite a potential legal challenge or filibuster, Sen. Chuck Schumer is "saying we should get him [Franken] in right away." But in purporting to represent Schumer's remarks, Brewer did not mention that Schumer reportedly said "there are still possible legal issues that will run their course."
During the January 5 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer suggested that there is "a cloud over" Democrat Al Franken -- who reportedly leads incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R) by 225 votes upon completion of the Minnesota Senate recount -- because a potential legal challenge by Coleman or filibuster by National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) chairman Sen. John Cornyn (TX) could impede efforts to seat Franken in the Senate. Additionally, Brewer said that despite a potential legal challenge or filibuster, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is "saying we should get him [Franken] in right away." But in purporting to represent Schumer's January 4 remarks, Brewer did not mention that Schumer reportedly said "there are still possible legal issues that will run their course." Schumer concluded: "With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible."
Brewer did not explain how a potential legal challenge by Coleman or a Senate filibuster by Cornyn constitutes "a cloud over Franken." As Media Matters for America has documented, numerous media figures have similarly warned that a "cloud" hangs over President-elect Barack Obama because of the scandal involving Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) or asserted that the scandal threatens to cast a "cloud" over Obama's presidency, despite the absence of any actual allegations of wrongdoing by Obama or his staff.
As Media Matters noted, in a January 4 post on ABC News' The Note, senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl uncritically quoted Cornyn's baseless assertion that Schumer "believes Al Franken should be seated without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor, as Minnesota law requires."
From Schumer's statement, as posted on the TPM Election Central blog on January 4:
With the Minnesota recount complete, it is now clear that Al Franken won the election. The Canvassing Board will meet tomorrow to wrap up its work and certify him the winner, and while there are still possible legal issues that will run their course, there is no longer any doubt who will be the next Senator from Minnesota. Even if all the ballots Coleman claims were double counted or erroneously added were resolved in his favor, he still wouldn't have enough votes to win. With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the January 5 edition of MSNBC Live:
BREWER: Senator [Harry] Reid [D-NV] says, look, we can -- we pick who sits in the Senate. The House picks who sits in the House. Is that true?
NATE PERSILY (Columbia Law School professor): Well, the Supreme Court actually has issued a decision right on point, and it said that, you know, the qualifications in the Constitution as to age, citizenship, and residency are grounds for disqualifying someone, but you can't just decide who can sit there. So if the Democrats wanted to deny seats to all the Republicans, they can't do that.
Now, there might be special circumstances here, because Blagojevich and this appointment are sort of under a cloud of suspicion of impropriety. And so, some people are saying, well, you know, they can deny a seat to [Roland] Burris because it's almost as if there's sort a bribery angle to this, but I think that's a pretty hard road for them to hoe.
BREWER: And -- and don't they have more control over who sits in the Senate, like, once the senator is actually there, seated in the Senate? Can they do anything about a person who's just incoming and hasn't necessarily done anything wrong?
PERSILY: Well, it's -- what they're -- people are saying is that they can deny him a seat because it's almost as if this is like a -- say a bribery type of case, right? So that there is this cloud that's hanging over the appointment, so therefore that it's almost as if someone were buying an election.
BREWER: Interesting that you bring up this cloud hanging over the appointment, because we're looking at Minnesota, where, today, they're considering whether to name Al Franken as the winner. It appears that he's ahead in the recount. That being said, you've got Norm Coleman who's challenging it, perhaps legally. We may see a legal challenge. John Cornyn of Texas says he's going to filibuster Al Franken being named to that seat. So isn't there a cloud over Franken, and yet you have Schumer saying we should get him in right away?
PERSILY: Well, that's right. What the Constitution says is that each house -- either the House of Representatives or the Senate -- is the judge of the qualifications, returns, and elections of their members. And there have been instances where they've said, you know, there's something suspicious in a certain election, therefore we're not going to seat them. That requires a majority vote of the Senate, and so, we'll see if they can prevent a majority vote from happening.
Yeah. That's a real cloud hanging over Franken. I seem toremember Coleman saying that Franken should concede when he'd won the initial count by only a couple hundred votes. Does that mean he'll concede now that he's lost the recount by a similar number? Magic 8 Ball says 'Signs Point to No.'
With Democrats, it's called a "cloud." With Republicans, it's called an opportunity.
We need a snoopy cartoon with that...
Of course there is a cloud over Fraken. With all the found ballots, so many left to be counted, and the dirty tricks Al has pulled, like trying to stop the counting now, there will be a cloud until a court steps in and stops this. He should not be seated.
"Stop the counting now"? The counting stopped because the recount was completed. And what dirty tricks are you referring to, specifically?
He doesn't know.
Rush hasn't told him yet.
Where's Fraken and why do we care if it's cloudy there?
With regard to the Minnesota election, it's been very clean, thorough and transparent. There are absolutely no instances of any kind of wrongdoing that anyone can point to. There have been no dirty tricks. It's just a simple fact that more voters voted for Franken than voted for Coleman. It's called democracy.
Shouldn't it be "a cloud hangs over the Republican party"? I mean the've lost both house of congress, losing seats in two strait elections; they hold a minority of the governorships; they've the lost the populat vote in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections; their philosphy has taken a hit with the economy collapsong after 8 years of Bush, 6 of which hed a 'Pub congress... So... What? Sunny wheather for them all the way? Stupid "liberal" media.
Why state the obvious?
I like Tom Hartmann's idea; if the Crybaby Republicans want to filibuster everything that the Democrats propose, fine... let them filibuster. However, make them actually stand there and talk the whole time, like they used to do. See if they're willing to do it Mr. Smith style.
They actually should do that. But they won't make them do that, they'll let them get away with their procedural BS.
Remember a guy named Harry Reid, the one who's afraid of his own shadow? The dems will cave-- it's standard practice.
Well, I'm afraid you're right. They need to boot Reid and put someone in there with some cajones.
Yep.
I think the MN gov said he wouldn't certify the election until the lawsuits were settled. Which is fine. No Dem has suggested that Franken be seated before the election is certified.
No, but the lawsuits will stretch on for months. If the governor doesn't sign tonight, it could be big problems.
The MSM loves this-- it's a hot story, and the Dems are seen to expel vital capital with this foolishness. The media loves everything being FUBAR, because they have no regard for the country.
Actually, Amy Klobuchar, our other Senator, has suggested that the winner of the recount be seated so that the state has full representation while the lawsuits work their way through the courts.
yeah but I think if the governor doesn't sign the statement, Al can't be seated. He could sign and it could still be vacated if Coleman prevailed somehow in court, but will he sign? ( nope!)
There would be a cloud regardless at this point...the GOP-leaning counties haven't turned in their counts of re-examined ballots yet, some counties are turning in higher vote counts than registered voters, some counties are going with electronic counts where there are fewer paper ballots to back them up. Even if every vote was legitimate (which we know the total would change each time even if they did 1,000,000 recounts), whomever gets the seat will be thought of as illegitimate and "cloudy" for their first term.
Strange thing about the above statement:
None of it is true.
Even if every vote was legitimate (which we know the total would change each time even if they did 1,000,000 recounts), whomever gets the seat will be thought of as illegitimate and "cloudy" for their first term.
According to that logic, what adjective is appropriate for Bush? Cloudy doesn't cut it.
They didn't want one in this race either. Coleman's initial declaration of victory and demand for Franken to give up and concede took place when the margin of winning was so low that a recount was legislatively mandated. Remember that, Coleman tried to supercede the law immediately after the first count was announced.
Off topic and out of touch.
read carefully what i wrote and allow me to interpret . The Franken-Coleman saga is not a story most news media picked up on. Ms Brewer is out there somewhere creating stories to report..
Thanks for thwe clarification. I never watch any TV news so I didn't realize they weren't hawking the Franken story. From what I read on read on the net I thought it was a bigger story, maybe more on radio talk than TV news. Maybe they just haven't yet got around to it.
Lets sit down and have a beer...........virtual one.
I just feel sorry for the citizens of Minnesota. They had a choice between a say and do anything Republican and a freakishly unremarkable partisan in Franken. I'm really surprised that the people didnt' vote for the third party candidate here.
freakishly unremarkable
AChris, that's my favorite adverb/adjective combo of the day. And speaking of "freakish" I met a young woman over the weekend who's Thai and from Minnesota. I always associate that accent with Scandihoovians and Germans, so it was really weird to me coming from a smokin' hot Asian girl.
(Oops, OT and revealing my own provincialism.)
I don't know enough about Franken's abilities to say how "unremarkable" he is, I'm guessing he's as partisan as many others running for those jobs. If he ever officially gets in there, I guess we'll see if he sinks or swims.
IF the State of Minnesota (unimpeded by their own State Court) Certifies a winner of their own State's election for the U.S. Senate, and sends that Certified person to the U.S. Senate as their agent in these matters:
AND also, a simple majority of the U.S. Senate, which would have to include (for reasons you will see shortly) the Majority Leader and, variously, the Vice President of the United States or the President Pro Tempore or whoever else it is that sits as the Presiding Officer of the U.S. Senate at the time, if all together they choose to Seat and Swear in a U.S. Senator:
THEN there is absolutely no way in the world possible, for any Court or any person anywhere, including any amount of U.S. Senators who form merely a minority of that Chamber (and again, the Majority Leader and whoever acts as Presiding Officer of the Senate, must be in the majority I am describing), none of them together, in any way, can stop the Swearing and Seating in, of a U.S. Senator.
Read it again if you like: every bit and part of it is true, and in total, it is the truth.
And in case you were wondering, there is no need or even custom, to accept a proposal for a Cloture Motion in this matter: as the Presiding Officer of the U.S. Senate, upon hearing the proposal for a Senate Rule 22 request for Cloture of debate (a Cloture Motion, whereupon the refusal to pass the Motion by a minority of forty or more Senators, stalls the particular business in the Senate, dead in the water), upon hearing the proposal, that Presiding Officer may hear the Majority Leader's objection to it: and the resulting majority of the Senate (all of this involving the persons I have already described), together with the Presiding Officer, then reject the proposal for a Cloture Motion, and move on to the business of Swearing and Seating the Senator from Minnesota, whoever he may be.
FINI: there is no known (wordly) higher authority in the matter, and no other or outer Jurisdiction. FINI
You think you know a way to impede or frustrate what it is I just described, so simply plainly and every bit of it nuts and bolts mechanically the way things work?
Then describe it to me, please.
Because I like on occasion to read frightened and imaginative descriptions of impossible situations and unreal things.
THEN there is absolutely no way in the world possible, for any Court or any person anywhere, including any amount of U.S. Senators who form merely a minority....
I like it yes... but, think for a moment. In our system of government we hopefully have a system of checks and balances. There should be no place where any branch of government is immune from oversight by the other branches. The citizens and the judiciary will not take lightly the notion that they have no recourse in "sacred" areas. Like it or not, citizens are allowed to plead a case in front of a judge.
And I would add: if what is being referred to here in the above MMFA item, by the word "filibuster", is meant to mean the blocking of any Senate business by a minority of forty or more Senators to refuse to invoke Cloture, well I already explained how that type of "filibuster" can't be made to happen. But if instead the "filibuster" being referred to is that of Sen. Cornyn of Texas, holding the Senate Floor and speaking interminably, as a way for one man to halt the business of the Senate, perhaps to the point of collapsing DEAD right there on the Senate Floor, from exhaustion or perhaps embarrassment, then good, I'd love to see it, I'd love Sen. Cornyn do all of that. It would be a spectacle that would have me glued to C-SPAN2 (and probably bored to tears at the same time).
But there is no other way for the true type of "filibuster" to happen: just for the other Jimmy Stewart kind of "filibuster" to happen (and I'll send a telegram to the U.S. Senate, in a wastepaper basket no less, telling him he's an idiot, should Sen. Cornyn entertain us all with his Jimmy Stewart impression.)
Once the state election officials officially declare a winner, what legal standing does any other elected official (say a Governer) have to not accept it?
A law suit? If that is the case, any candidate who loses any office can file a law suit and the legal winner will will wait for months for the law suit to be dismissed/invalidated.
Is there any penalty (other than kicking the obstructor out in the next election) for an elected official to deny the people their true representative by stating reasons that later prove to be unfounded?