(If you read the shorter, hastier, breathless version of this post earlier today, skip down to the subhead: The new stuff starts there.)

"We shall take this matter under advisement. An opinion will be forthcoming. We are adjourned."

Thus spake acting Chief Justice Alan Page at the conclusion of today's oral arguments in the Coleman/Franken election/recount/contest/appeal case. And I will boldly predict that an opinion will indeed be forthcoming.

I'll give you my reaction/analysis to oral arguments, but first, a big fat disclaimer: The justices don't take positions in these proceedings, they ask questions. It's dangerous to infer from their questions which way they are leaning, but I'm going to do it anyway. It also borders on unfair to start with preconceptions about which way a given justice many lean in a case like this, based on what's know about them politically or even juridically. Lastly, MinnPost teammate Jay Weiner is also typing away as I write this, and our pieces will probably overlap.

But I'm going to blow past those cautions and try to analyze what I heard without worrying about being presumptuous, politically incorrect, rude or redundant with what Jay will write.

1. The questions to Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg were significantly more skeptical and more aggressive and covered a wider range of problems with that side of the case.  Anyone who had to guess which way the court will rule based on this morning's exchanges would probably say that it looks bad for Coleman.
2. Because of the two recusals, there are five justices participating. I'm sure they will try to reach unanimty and I won't be surprised if they succeed. But if not, it takes three votes to win. Justice Page and Justice Paul Anderson seemed to ask the most questions and seemed to challenge Friedberg the hardest. They were considered the likeliest two justices to favor Franken's side of the case, and their questions seemed to reinforce that impression. More details below, but in the above-declared spirit of presumption, I would be surprised if Franken does not start out with those two votes heading into the final discussions by the court.
3. Justice Helen Meyer, a Jesse Ventura appointee, was considered a potential swing vote heading into today. She spoke little and I make no inferences as to what she is thinking.
4. Justices Lorie Gildea and Christopher Dietzen, both Pawlenty appointees, have the clearest Republican credentials of the five. If I'm right about Page and Anderson, Coleman would need the votes of these two, plus Meyer. Gildea pursued skeptical lines of questioning with both sides, which made it difficult to sense what she may be thinking. But Dietzen, who also asked questions of both sides, seemed very troubled by technical problems in Coleman's case that could easily be used to reject the appeal without reaching the big constitutional arguments. I'll give a few details on that below. And I repeat my caution above about inferring a judge's lean from the questions he asks. But no one who was watching this morning could help but notice Dietzen's implications about shortcoming's in Coleman's evidence. If Dietzen -- whose pre-judicial career has the strongest Republican flavor -- isn't voting and arguing for Coleman, the former Senator's goose is cooked.
5. The justices didn't show that much interest in what is presumed to be Coleman's biggest and best argument: That variations in the treatment of absentee ballots across county lines constitute a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Their interest seemed closer to the ground and to state law and specifically on whether the ThreeJudge election contest court correctly concluded that Minnesota is a state that requires strict compliance with all the requirements of the law governing absentee voting. And they asked no question that implied any of them thought the trial court got it wrong.

The New Stuff Starts Here

The Supreme Court has the authority to overrule the three-judges on their interpretation of the law. But to discard any of the findings of fact reached by TheThree, they need to rule that the trial court abused its discretion. The trial court ruled that Coleman had not met his burden of proof to show that problems with the election may have resulted in the wrong candidate being declared the winner. The trial court found that the errors were relatively minor. Gildea specifically challenged Friedberg: How can we reach a finding that the trial court abused its discretion?

Friedberg did have an answer. If Coleman didn't meet his burden, it's because the trial court wouldn't let Team Coleman put in enough evidence about the county-by-county variations. But both Gildea and Dietzen seemed skeptical that Coleman had done enough to even try to meet the burden of proof. Dietzen was very critical of the document, called an offer of proof, that Team Coleman submitted in an effort to show that disparities cost Coleman the election:"I’ve never seen an offer of proof like this," he said. It doesn’t say who the witnesses will be. Why is this not inadequate? he asked. We don’t have admissible evidence to show whether you’ve met your burden.

Justice Meyer was bothered by a statement in Coleman's brief that said the "overwhelming majority" of Minnesota's counties used "substantial compliance" (rather than "strict compliance") standards in assessing absentee ballot envelopes. Where's the evidence? she asked.

Friedberg talked about big disparities between practices in Minneapolis versus Carver County, a familiar refrain. But Gildea was being much more specific. Your brief says the overwhelming majority, but you didn't call election officials from the majority of counties.

The fact that these challenges come from Meyer, Gildea and Dietzen, who would be expected to be Coleman's likeliest friends on the court if he has any friends there, is especially troubling for Coleman supporters.

The "where you sleep" argument

Friedberg relied heavily on the argument that your ability to have your absentee ballot should not depend on "where you sleep," meaning whether you live in a strict or a loose county.

Page tormented Friedberg with a couple of arguments that team Franken has been emphasizing for months. How can a voter, who failed to follow the statutory requirements for having his absentee ballot counted, be said to be disenfranched. The voter simply didn't follow the law.To argue that a voter who violated the law should have his vote counted because another voter who violated the law had his vote counted is like the argument of a driver who gets a speeding ticket: "The cars in front of me were speeding, they got away. Why do I get the ticket?" Page said.

Friedberg replied these voters didn't break the law, they complied "substantialy," if not strictly. The Minnesota tradition is that if a voter makes a good faith attempt to vote and commits no fraud, every effort should be made to count the vote.

That runs up against a string of precedents in which Minnesota courts have said that voting by absentee ballots is more like a privilege than a right, and that the Legislature has set up strict requirements for absentee voters in order to prevent fraud. Anderson cited language from some of those rulings and confessed:"I’m having trouble with your assertion that we’re a substantial compliance state."

Franken's turn in the hotbox

Franken lawyer Marc Elias faced skeptical questions too, but not as many and not as skeptical.

Gildea said the job of the state was to ascertain who got the most legally cast votes. If there's evidence that improper votes are part of the count, how can Minnesota be sure who got the most properly cast votes?

Elias' replies were on the technical side. Coleman failed to introduce enough ballots, with proof that they met all the requirements, to overturn the results. (I'm not sure there is a non-teachnical answer to this. It is basically impossible to know who would have won the election if a single standard -- whether high or low -- had been applied to every absentee ballot.)

But this is a legal case and Coleman has the burden of proving that the previous rulings, that Franken got the most votes, is wrong. Elias' argues that Coleman has only theories, not evidence.

Gildea, after pressing him on it, summarized Elias' argument thus: "It was his burden to prove it. He didn’t prove it. He can’t stand here today and speculate." Elias glady accepted that version.

Anderson and Dietzen both pursued a line of what could be called pro-Coleman questions. Relying on Minnesota precedents and statutory language, Franken argues that if Coleman wanted to raise challenges to the acceptance or rejection of absentee ballots, the time to do it at the polling places on Election Day, not in a post-election legal case. But testimony in this case has shown that it is virtually impossible to challenge the ballots on or before Election Day.

Under Anderson's questioning, Elias didn't really have a reply to that. And Dietzen asked Friedberg on the last round whether Coleman could have made those challenges sooner, giving Friedberg a chance to answer: "absolutely, unequivocally, 100 percent, No."

In the hallway outside the courtroom, both teams held brief press conferences. Coleman himself spoke at his, and, when asked whether he would appeal the case further if he loses, was non-committal. Friedberg, who, spoke after, turned this into an act of chivarly, stating that threatening to appeal one court's ruling to a higher court, before the ruling comes down, is "a form of intimidation" that he never does and no one should ever do.

There was, by the way, no explicit discussion during the oral arguments of Franken's request that in its ruling the MN Supremes should directly order Gov. Pawlenty to issue an election certificate to Franken. Pawlenty has tap-danced around what he might do, but has said he would follow court orders.