We seem to talking at cross purposes, since I find most of your post non- responsive. There is either some confusion between us, or you are not engaging the actual argument. The sampling analogy has no bearing, since the cause of the heightened confidence is a matter of interpretation. You interpret it as partisanship. I gave an example of having one's view of an organization affected by a single episode that was non- partisan, preliminary (as I anticipated the exchange) to arguing that the uptick in Republican confidence was not per se partisan.
The surprise of the legal team over Scalia has no bearing. It does not mean they did not believe their argument, it means they were not sure how Scalia would behave. As for Republicans in general, yes, they understood the equity issue, and yes, they "got it" about the intent of the legislature determining the date at which the contest of the results must end.
Since you argued with me over my opinion in the Skokie case, although dismissively, in order to claim it was merely emotional, it did behoove you, in fact, to address my actual reasoning, which you failed to do.
Your rationalization for being unaffected by a single instance is somewhat strange. The significance doesn't have to do with Constitutional precedent, but with what you think of the judgment of the justices.
Maybe this will be clarifying. I fear not...... |
