Legal Commentary

When Legal Realism Attacks

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Kos, Republicans arguing for expansive statutory interpretation and Dems for strict construction:

Coleman lawyer James Langdon said that the Franken team "would have you sit in a vacuum, strictly interpreting a statute[]" . . . The Franken camp argued the opposite -- that Minnesota laws are very specific about what kinds of ballots are to be counted . . . "The contestants [Coleman] talk a lot about what they wish the law might be, but not what the law is," said lead Franken lawyer Marc Elias. "And the law is what it is, and has strict requirements that must be adhered to."

Without knowing more, I must admit I prefer the Coleman argument, especially when it comes to counting votes. Beyond that, if a consistent standard is applied, does anyone doubt Franken will still win? I am not thrilled with people not actually parties to the dispute letting their concern for voters suddenly disappear. Franken should be arguing for consistent expansive standards imo. I find his reversal the more depressing. I already expect the worst from Republicans.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on February 13, 2009 (boomark / email).