Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Archive for June 2nd, 2009

Another Hole Blown Into The “Lone Nut” Hypothesis

Posted by Phoenix Woman on June 2, 2009

Remember my mention of the efforts to pretend that Scott Roeder, the man arrested for the murder of Dr. George Tiller, was a “lone nut” and bad apple who was totally unrepresentative of the hardcores in the anti-choice movement?

Attaturk points out yet another hole in that hypothesis (from Plog):

KMBC Channel 9 captured this shot of a phone number to anti-abortion group Operation Rescue inside the car of Scott Roeder, the man suspected of shooting and killing Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller Sunday morning at a Wichita church.

cherylsnumberkmbcsized.jpg

The phone number is written on an envelope with the name “Cheryl” and “Op Rescue.” Cheryl is Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue’s senior policy adviser, who in 1988 was convicted of conspiring to bomb a California abortion clinic. She served two years in prison.

Ms. Sullenger had no comment, other than to say that he hadn’t called her recently and that anyone could have got her phone number off the internet. More than that, she would not say. But it’s rather interesting that Roeder, at any rate, feels he knows her well enough not to need her last name next to her phone number.

Posted in abortion, Professional Christians, rightwing moral cripples | 6 Comments »

So How Screwed Is Norm Coleman?

Posted by Phoenix Woman on June 2, 2009

Photobucket

He was screwed from the beginning, says Rick Hasen:

4. The reason Coleman is having a harder time is that he’s got a tougher road to success:

a. The state Supreme Court is going to deter to the factual findings of the trial court, and those factual findings favor Franken.

b. The state Supreme Court’s existing precedent in terms of treating absentee ballots strictly as a matter of fraud-prevention favors Franken. A change in that standard now, as I’ve argued, would create a due process argument for Franken by constituting a change in the rules of the election after the fact.

c. Even if the court accepted some of Coleman’s arguments in the abstract—such as that there were some votes illegally counted by some jurisdictions (or alternatively, some ballots accepted under a looser “substantial compliance” standard)– that doesn’t mean Coleman would win his case. He’d have to show that there were enough problems to make a difference in the outcome of the election (a point the Justices expressed a great deal of skepticism about, in their discussion of the failure of the offer of proof).

d. On the merits, the Justices mentioned ways of distinguishing other cases in which there were due process problems, such as when voters relied upon rules of the game that were changed later. There was an interesting discussion of whether Bush v. Gore eliminated the requirement that a challenger prove intentional discrimination to make out an equal protection argument. It was the only line of argument that I saw potentially helping Coleman, but it did not appear to be enough to overcome the Justice’s skepticism.

Hasen later cites a whole bunch of other folks who think that Franken’s going to win going away.

The irony is of course that Team Coleman wants to overturn Andersen v. Rolvaag, the Minnesota case law on recounts, by using Bush v. Gore, when Andersen v. Rolvaag is not only settled case law all the way up to the US Supreme Court, but is actually the lead precedent cited in Bush v. Gore!

Posted in Al Franken, Minnesota, Norm Coleman, Senate | 4 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: