[PistolPaknMama]

....predicts that the high court ruling that ended the 2000 election deadlock will "go down in history as one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made."

Words from an unindicted rapist/murderer/adulterer/liar. Like someone gives weight to anything he thinks.

[Dilbert56]

Bush v. Gore should never have gotten to the Supreme Court. It took complete malfeasance by the Supreme Court of Florida (SCOFLA) to get it there. SCOTUS had to decide in just a couple of days, well outside their normal operating windows. They had to make findings on the facts because they were dealing with such juveniles. The SCOFLA recount ruling said:

• Undervotes would be recounted but not overvotes. So if someone using an optical scanner filled in the circle next to a candidate's name and then wrote his name in on the line as well, that vote was thrown out even though the voter's intention was crystal clear.
• Miami-Dade had hand recounted its first 109 precincts which tended heavily Democrat. At that point, they knew they didn't have enough "found" votes to change the election and stopped. So if your vote was not picked up by the machines, and you lived in those precincts, your vote got counted. If you lived in the other precincts (which tended to vote Republican), it wasn't.
• Other recounts were permitted to stand even though their criteria for evaluating votes had changed in the middle of counting.

Anyone who cast an overvote or was in some other way excluded by the torturous mechanics of SCOFLA's decision was having their right to vote compromised. Seven (7) of the SCOTUS justices, as well as three of SCOFLA's thought this was a travesty and ended it.

Later recounts performed at the behest of the media showed that GWB would have won the recount advocated by SCOFLA. In most scenarios you could envision, GWB would win. The only cases Al Bore would have won were a complete recount using the strictest interpretations (no hanging or dimpled chads counted). That was not what he asked for in his lawsuits.

An observation: The press-sponsored recounts proved the GWB contention that if you changed the standards of the recount, you would get different results. The standards, therefore needed to be fair and consistent. This was ignored.

Another observation: Depending on what standards were used for the hand recount, GWB's lead increased, decreased, or disappeared. There's not way all of them could be more accurate than the machine count since they went in opposite directions. Nobody ever showed any one of them was more accurate than the machine count.

Last observation: The press-sponsored recounts were done by auditors with plenty of time on their hands. They still disagreed about a number (40%?) of the ballots. If the recounts were done by Democrat-dominated eleciton boards, rather than independent auditors, Al Gore could easily have become President.