>>The facts have not changed. Your initial statement was not based on facts, but rather on a (mis) interpretation that you found "checking online", as you said.

It seems to be a fact that according to the records, people older than 116 are eligible to vote in Ohio. According to the site that compiled the info, 72 of them did vote in 2016. Husted's new information confirms how this comes about because the DOB is wrong. That mistake is not my mistake but based on this fact, I withdrew my references to skeletons and zombies, which is a shame because I quote enjoyed that meme to which I am entitled when that's what the records say. Meanwhile, the efforts to minimize the far more important SC decision continue:

>> since the decision was very disputed, the process must have had merit, and thus it would be unfair to blame the litigants as frivolous. You took that as "criticizing the unfavorable decision", which I never did.

By definition, a US SC decision *ends* dispute. The majority decision is the decision and people don't get to finesse the result by reading tea leaves in the split. The "frivolous" word is your own, presumably to avoid saying "wrong" which is what the SC judgment makes the litigants and their accusations of voter suppression that you still seem to support, which answers the "what do you do sir" question.