Arguments with Dave

I don't think it was background on Scalia. He is saying that his fierce commitment to textualism was the cause of his decision on the Gore case. He said that the recount was "unconstitutional" and hence should not continue (even though such a recount was clearly in the public interest). What I want to know is, why did he think it was unconstitutional? What silly obscure reason in the letter of the law did he find?
He writes that the original founders of the the constitution were in favour of the right to bear arms, even though the second amendment does not make it literally clear that this state of affairs should persist after the temporary emergency of the revolution. But surely they would also have been in favour of a thorough recount in a disputed presidential election? Scalia is clearly a selective textualist, and a partisan hack, and you Dave will only disagree with me because you share his prejudices.
But this isn't even my main point. He can't say that it was Al Gore's fault for the judicial outcome. Gore was perfectly entitled, morally and legally, to demand a recount. If you want someone to blame for the inauguration of the most disastrous presidency in history, look no further than this gun-toting, religiously anti-abortion, illiberal, Republican voting Reagan appointee who cast the deciding vote in this case for the most sectarian of reasons.