Don't forget that the ballot itself was illegal. The election rules were to have a simple ballot where each row of punch holes corresponds to a page of candidates.
Oddly enough for the election of the governor's brother, the ballot was coincidentally changed to a butterfly page where they alternated candidates on the two pages. On this ballot, the governor's brother somehow managed to be first, then lets have the most likely threat be third hole, but second on the page, so any confusion between second and third goes to a fringe candidate who happened to be on the other page of the (again, illegal) butterfly ballot. All this is theoretical right? I mean people wouldn't make those mistakes? Hmm, Pat Buchanan was the second punch hole, but what you may have punched if you wanted Gore. Buchanan somehow managed strong support in heavily Jewish districts, even though he is thought by many to be anti-semitic.
So, the design was the one most likely to siphon votes from the Democrat and give the state to his brother. This is never mentioned when they talk about 2000, and I never heard it mentioned at all in the Supreme Court decision. So Scalia not only didn't care about the 9 lawyers deciding the Presidency, he didn't care about the effect an illegal ballot to help the governor's brother had on democracy either.
BTW1: autocorrect corrected Scalia to scaliness. Somewhat appropriate,
BTW2: Nobody has mentioned about JEBush on one hand swearing to uphold the laws of his state, and on the other hand allowing to exist an illegal ballot to help his brother to win his state.