And I suppose I could find this abusive usage other than at one place, but this is my source, Dave Orrick and Rachel Stassen-Berger of PiPress explained the situation:
"Today's [Minnesota Supreme Court] ruling, which effectively disregards the votes of hundreds of Minnesotans, ensures that an election contest is now inevitable," Fritz Knaak said in a noon statement.
Just hours before the Minnesota canvassing board is slated to declare Democrat Al Franken the winner of the long-running U.S. Senate race, the state Supreme Court today dealt Coleman a blow.
Coleman had asked the court to force reconsideration of 654 absentee ballots his campaign said may have been rejected in error. In its decision today, the court essentially said he will have to seek redress for that complaint in an election lawsuit after the canvassing board acts.
Now, the PiPress opening paragraph:
Shortly after the state Supreme Court this morning rejected Republican Norm Coleman's last hope to stop the U.S Senate recount, Coleman's attorney said a post-election lawsuit is "inevitable."
First linguistic nuance, always someone bleats, "inevitable." So, is there such a word as "evitable" and what might it mean? Use of the negativing prefix suggests the word exists.
My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary [not too fat, not too thin, just right] has the definition:
evitable: avoidable
Okay. I like that.
A judicial fight is entirely avoidable, if only Norm Coleman would fold his hand and avoid wasting time and money in further contesting of things - the exact step he urged upon Al Franken months ago, back in the days immediately following election day.Norm, just do it. It is evitable.
Tell your attorney that.
Nothing about going to court is "inevitable." The man has abused the English language without excuse. Get a new lawyer.