In the end, Norm Coleman could not get his case before a single judge ready to ignore standing Minnesota law as it relates to voting by absentee ballot. He was 0-for-3 with the three-judge panel hearing his election contest and, when he appealed their unanimous decision, he went 0-for-5 with the justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court, whose unanimous decision is here.
Power Line philosopher Scott Johnson doesn't care for it. Oh, the various parties honorably discharged their duties under difficult circumstances, but he "strongly disagrees" with some of their decisions, and, further,
It should be noted, however, that the Minnesota Supreme Court decision gives no guidance to Minnesotans concerned about the prevention of the disparate treatment of absentee ballots in the future. While the decision is not wrong on its own terms, It is complacent in a way that is hard to understand.
Do you detect a certain straining to avoid the usual words? We are told that "the decision is not wrong on its own terms" and, in elaboration of this cryptic assertion, that it "gives no guidance" and is "complacent." Sounds to me like a call for an activist judiciary. Johnson thinks we need guidance and he expects judges to supply it. By "complacent" he means "content to apply the law," which is exactly what he thought judges should be before a Republican narrowly lost a race for US Senate.
It's not that hard to understand. Johnson is unable, or unwilling, to recognize his own creed.
Comments