Do you mean that, when the Congress assembled in joint session on January 6, 2001 to count the electoral votes that the Republican majority would have counted the illegally and extraconstitutionally appointed Gore electors from Florida, instead of the alternative slate of Bush electors which surely would have been appointed (legally and constitutionally) by the Florida Legislature?
Why on earth do you think they would have done that?
And why is the expansion of Supreme Court power into something which is supposed to be handled by the People in Congress assembled a good thing?
There is zero-ZERO-chance that Gore would have been President if the post-electoral process had followed the Eleventh Amendment as clarified by the Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877.
The Republicans lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up and fight for what is right in the face of overwhelming anti-Republican publicity. Had Gore counted the votes, and had Gore then declared himself the winner, a media tide would have followed. This tide would then have painted the Republicans as blocking the "will of the people."
With the "will of the people" behind them, the democrats would then launch a media campaign not to be believed.
How many middle of the road R's would have folded? Enough.
Was Trent Lott the guy that would then hold them together in the face of overwhelming onslaught that would have ensued?
The question is laughable, as we all know the answer. The Republicans would have folded like a cheap suit.
Yes, President Gore would have been the outcome.
The Republicans showed what they are really made of by their failure to uphold the impeachment and removal of Clinton. The decision in the election would be similar as to the impeachment: Not based on facts or law or on the Consitution, but on political expediancy.
Pretty sad, actually.