It's always a tricky business to read clues into the questions that judges ask the lawyers during these proceedings -- despite some basic assumptions about how this works, judges can surprise you. But if we just go by the basic assumptions, it didn't look good for Coleman, with the judges asking pointed questions of Friedberg that at certain points amounted to ridicule of him for putting on a shoddy case.
At one point, Justice Christopher Dietzen went over Team Coleman's written offers of proof -- filings of proposed evidence that an attorney makes when a trial court won't admit it as official evidence, but he wants to preserve it for future appeals. "I've never seen an offer of proof like this," said Dietzen, complaining that the offers didn't actually identify specific potential witnesses or what their presumed evidence would have been been -- only continued arguments that "a substantial number" of ballots exist. Dietzen added that "the rules of evidence, the rules of civil procedure apply. Now why is this offer of proof not inadequate, in that we don't have admissible evidence that can show whether you've met your burden?"
Norm's guy seems to be catching hell from the justices. Also this morning, WCCO's Esme Murphy couldn't find one legal expert who thought that Norm had a snowball's chance in hell:
Furthermore, I have been unable to find any independent expert who believes Coleman will win in the Minnesota Supreme Court. In fact, I have asked the Coleman camp if they know of any expert and they not given me any names.
The thing about experts is that they can, of course, be wrong. But when they all say the same thing you have to wonder.
Gee, can Al win for the third time in a row? Damn straight he can! I can't wait to see Bill O'Reilly's head explode.