The whole point of this book is to break down in great detail just how wrong the Supreme court was in it's ruling.

To adress the specifc points you mention here. The first point mentioned by Scalia is that counting of votes of questionable legality harms the defendant and the country because it throws his victory into question. This argument is amazingly spurious, since having the election decided by a court decision can at best be equally harmful and is very likely worse.

The second point Scalia raises here make more sense, but the book shows exactly how Scalia is going against the legal principles that he has long crusaded for by raising this point. Scalia has long advocated the importance of the Supreme Court not over ruling state courts unless there is a clear cut reason for doing so, that the Supreme Court should not override state courts on matters of state law, and has held the posistion that long tradional systems should be held to be legal even if they are superficially questionable. In raising the second point Scalia has gone against all of these principles to get a decision that he falls in line with his political beliefs.