If true, that gave her not only a personal bias, but a very case-specific one. Second, the intellectual dishonesty. This is apparent, in retrospect, in Scalia's rationale for stopping the recount two days before oral arguments on the Bush appeal. But Scalia had to know that a Bush presidency would be stigmatized by any decision to abort the recount. He also had to know that those ballots eventually will be counted.
Ballots are public records in Florida.
The question is which newspapers or interest groups will do it first. If it turns out that Gore really did have more votes, the court will be stigmatized no less than the administration. In 1857, Scott vs. Sandford declared Congress powerless to stop the spread of slavery. It brought on the Civil War. In 1944, Korematsu vs. United States upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans for no reason but their race.