the language is clear enough, t-paw's gotta sign it.

But doesn't the last footnote say that a court clerk will do it for the Gov. if he doesn't?:

The Clerk of Appellate Courts is directed to enter judgment in this appeal under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.02 immediately upon the expiration of the time for filing a petition for rehearing provided in Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 140.01, if no petition has been filed.

Governor Pawlenty was clearly sending the MSC a message when he said, repeatedly and publicly that he'd sign on the dotted line if the court so ordered.

By declining to make such an order, the MSC has returned the favor by clearly sending a message of their own.

On to the SCOTUS!

In this case, I think the term "entitled" means the election certificate should be issued. The word "order" means something different in law. However, the vernacular that an order is required could put Pawlenty in trouble because the hard-core will want the word "order" and Pawlenty's a smart enough attorney to realize that if an order comes it will castigate him for delaying.

Technically, the court doesn't have to do anything explicit in terms of an order: the guiding statutes clearly give Pawlenty no choice but to sign once Franken has been found to have received the highest number of votes. The governor has no discretion here. You're parsing way too fine here.

Best case scenario for Gov Pawlenty is that former Sen Coleman announces he will not pursue further appeals. If Coleman chooses to continue the fight, Pawlenty might have to make an actual decision.

The language gives the U.S. Senate all the foundation needed to seat Sen. Franken, even if Pawlenty should stonewall the Court's order on the specious grounds they didn't specifically order him to sign the certificate.

It would be good to have the language interpreted by a legal scholar. To me, it has the feeling of a direct order couched in judicial language.

Regardless, if TPaw were to refuse to sign it, wouldn't he need to explain why Franken was NOT entitled to the certificate.

That would take him in to some pretty deep waters and would imply that his judgment trumps the MN Supreme Court.

In the CNN article published about the decision this afternoon, they state the following: "But Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, told CNN on Sunday that he would sign Franken's election certificate if the state Supreme Court declared him the winner."
re:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/30/franken.ruling/

If T-Paw does not sign that certificate than he better raise my taxes- fall back on all his words.

Eric, part of your confusion is your incorrect interpretation of the word "order" versus what Pawlenty knows the word to mean in the legal process and as a lawyer himself. The decision today, legally speaking, IS the order of the court. (The final order, to use the precise language.) There legally is no reason for anything more explicit, no matter what the wingnuts argue. The governor has literally no discretion in this under the statutes; his role is to affix the official state seal to the election results. He's been masterful at setting himself as something more in the process to puff up his own importance -- sadly, helped along by the likes of you looking to add more drama to the situation -- but legally speaking he's really a non-issue in the process.

Not to throw cold water but ....
The fact that the court allows Coleman a 10 day period in which to request a rehearing will give Pawlenty enough wiggle room to delay signing a certificate until the 10 days are up or Coleman has finally capitulated.

Doesn't matter. Coleman conceded.