Mark Halperin

What Justice Scalia and his four colleagues did was they said the Florida Supreme Court said there should be a recount, and they said no.

The federal government's going to tell Florida how they should run this election in their state.

That is antithetical.

In my understanding of the law, and I'm not a lawyer either, but I've studied this case a lot, it's antithetical to what I believe Justice Scalia would normally say, which is normally he'd say defer to the states.

The federal court should not tell Florida how to run their election.

How did he defend that decision?

How do you explain that decision except for their politicians?

Even he, thought of as this high-principled guy, was a politician in a robe who said, we're going to give the Republican the presidency.

And that's an equal protection argument that the voter in one county should be treated.

But that's something that traditionally a liberal justice would say.

Washington needs to tell Florida you're treating the voters of County A different than the voters of County B. Historically, that would not be a Scalia position.

court.

All right.

I'll never believe that Scalia did anything but vote politically as all the justices did.

Here's the question I wanted to ask him.

I was once at an event where he was taking questions and I

Raise my hand desperately.

I didn't get called on.

How would he answer this question?

Very big 10th Amendment guy, very deferential to state power, not a big supporter of gay rights as something that should be created by the courts.