No, I’ve simply engaged in commonsensical interpretation of what the two of you have said. If you haven’t managed to express what’s really on your mind that’s not my problem. Nor is it my problem if the point has escaped you. I suspect most readers of this thread (if there are any left) get the point: you and Scalia are blinkered ideological tools.

I don’t know why you think that you can answer my criticism of what Scalia said by simply repeating what Scalia said.

But, by doing so, you’ve made it easy for me to make my point again. With any luck it won’t go over your head this time.

The Florida SC was never in a position to “Decide the election”. All it did was order a recount, which might have shown Bush to be the winner. The US SC, by intervening in the case and stopping the court-ordered recount, did, in effect, decide the election. The dichotomy Scalia poses in the words you quote is false and dishonest.

If that doesn’t answer your “question,” that’s too bad.

And I’m tired of all you leftie losers putting words in my mouth. “And if pigs had wings, we wouldn t have to go to the store to buy bacon,” is a saying that I’ve used for years to mean that you can imagine anything you want, but that doesn’t make it real. Not quite the same as your lame “Shorter Frank.”

Shorter Frank: “We won. Who cares how. Bite me, losers.” There’s your rightwinger in a nutshell.

But I do congratulate you (for a third time) on the semi-deft way you avoided (for a third time) discussing Scalia s bigger lie.

Since I don’t seem to be able to include a link here, I’ll say: Read about it on horsesass.org.

Hey, wait a mo…..

But I do congratulate you (once again) on the semi-deft way you avoided (once again) discussing Scalia s bigger lie.

Total nonsense.

“Dragged” most certainly has connotations of violence and illegitimacy in the context. Used to be conservatives were all for defending the plain meaning of language. I guess all those principles are out the window when you’re faced with the task of defending the indefensible.

But I do congratulate you on the semi-deft way you avoided (once again) discussing Scalia’s bigger lie.

And I’m glad to see you agree that the litigation of the Florida election was not, in fact, illegitimate.

I will answer your stupid question: NO!

Scalia’s bigger falsehood is that because the Gore people “dragged” the case into the courts, the SC had no choice but to hear the case (even if the “Bush people “made no claim, one wonders?). He doesn’t want the election decided by the Florida Supreme Court, but he would have been perfectly happy to have it decided by Katherine Harris.

And oh yeah: the Florida SC never tired to decide the election. All they did was order the recount to continue. The dilemma Scalia poses is therefore totally bogus.

So, if all he had said was “The Gore people were the first to litigate the election” he would be factually correct. What he actually did say makes him a grade-A truth-avoider.

Antonin Scalia: proof that having a brain the size of Cleveland doesn’t prevent you from being a blinkered ideological tool.