Early this week, I defended Norm Coleman against the common Dem complaint that the continuation of his legal case is intended entirely to delay the inevitable seating of Al Franken. I haven't seen the dilatory tactics to back up such an allegation.

But I also said that if Coleman fails to file his notice of appeal to the MN Supreme Court early in the 10-day window, I would consider that to be a dilatory tactic.

Day 1 would have been Tuesday. On Wednesday, (Day 2) when Coleman lawyer Ben Ginsberg spoke to the media by conference call, he said that the notice would not be filed until "next week." Next Monday would be Day 7, and Ginsberg didn't say Monday, he said next week. He said Team Coleman needed more time to study the ThreeJudges ruling.

The form to notify the court of the appeal is a short, easy-to-prepare document. It does not require study of the ThreeJudges ruling (unless Coleman is trying to decide whether to appeal, but Coleman and Ginsberg have stated that the appeal is a certainty.)

I would say that by Monday, Coleman/Ginsberg will have blown the opportunity to send the message that they are not stalling.

However, I did have a chance to ask Coleman Campaign Manager Cullen Sheehan why Ginsberg would have to spend a week studying the ruling. He replied that once the notice is filed, the Supreme Court will be able to set a deadline for Team Coleman to submit their appeal brief. In the 2000 Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore, the lawyers were given only a few days to write their briefs. Perhaps the MN Supremes would give Coleman only a few days. By waiting to file the notice, Team Coleman adds some days to write their brief, Sheehan said.

This was certainly a better reason than Ginsberg gave (since Ginsberg's reason made little sense). Sheehan's reason would make sense if there was any reasonable likelihood that the Supreme Court was not going to give reasonable time for the briefs.

But there is no very good reason to think so. Bush v. Gore was a case driven by insane deadline pressure, pressure that in the end was the excuse or reason that the U.S. Supremes gave for not allowing a recount of the deeply flawed Florida 2000 presidential election -- much more deeply flawed than the 2008 Minnesota senatorial election.

There is nothing in this case that resembles that pressure, and no reason that the MN Supremes wouldn't give the parties reasonable time to write their briefs. Minnesota has all the time it needs to complete its process and the entire story to date has been marked by a willingness to take all the time necessary to do it right.

In the end, the difference between a Coleman notice on Day One versus Day Ten is, well, nine days. Not so much in the context of this case. I am resisting the widespread Dem spin that every additional day the seat remains open is a scandal or a tragedy. But whatever extra days are wasted on an unnecessary step will very likely simply be added to the time consumed by this next phase. This delay undermines any claim Coleman might make that he is not stalling.

Of course, if Coleman were to adopt the "modest proposal" I suggested a couple of days ago, he wouldn't have to worry about any perceptions that he is stalling. Several people have suggested that I inquire whether Coleman might want to adopt the modest proposal or, if not, why not? I am endeavoring to get an answer to that question.