SCALIA: Well, the press unanimously -- and there were a number of different organizations involved -- they unanimously came to that conclusion.

Scalia is a sick fuck. Facts be dammed. Onward with conserviative failure.

In fact, according to the Post -- one of NORC's clients for the study -- the NORC data show that in a statewide recount, Gore would likely have emerged the winner under four criteria for determining a voter's intent. The Post reported that researchers in the study "examined all ballots that were initially rejected by voting machines. This included those that contained no discernible vote for president, known as 'undervotes,' and those that registered votes for more than one candidate, the 'overvotes.' " The study then applied "different standards for determining voter intent and tallied results based on several scenarios that sought to approximate conditions on the ground in Florida." The Post reported that the NORC data show:

* When the recount tallied ballots in which "at least one corner of a chad was detached from punch-card ballots," Gore won Florida by 60 votes.
* "[U]nder the least-restrictive standard for interpreting voter intent, which counted all dimpled chads and any discernible optical mark (which in the case of optical ballots Florida's new election law now requires to be counted as votes)," Gore won Florida by 107 votes.
* Using a "more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots" -- and in which chads had to be "fully punched" -- Gore won by 115 votes.
* Replicating "the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts" gave Gore 171 more votes than Bush.

Moreover, by stating "[s]even-two" in response to Scalia's claim that the Bush v. Gore decision "was not close," Rose falsely suggested that the court voted 7-2 against allowing a recount to go forward. In fact, four of the nine justices dissented from the majority decision ending the recount, meaning that the decision was actually 5-4. Scalia responded to Rose's assertion by stating, "It was seven to two on the principal issue of whether there had been a constitutional violation. It wasn't close." In fact, while two of the dissenting justices -- David Souter and Stephen Breyer -- agreed that the procedures for the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause, their position was not that the recount should be halted, but that Florida should be allowed to conduct a recount under different procedures. So, contrary to Scalia and Rose's suggestion, four justices -- not two -- took the position that a recount should go forward.