An interesting comment...

I realize this isn't the definitive source, but given who the speaker
is, I'd offer that it's a source worthy of note. Offered without
further comment.

From an audience Q & A session at one of a series of interviews by Norm
Pearlstine, this one of Sandra Day O'Connor:

Question by Doron Weber, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation: Could you share
your thoughts on your role in the 2000 election?

O'CONNOR: I will tell you, nothing the Courts decided changed the voting
in Florida. There were three recounts, and in none of those recounts
would the end result of the vote for Bush in those counties have
changed. So, regardless of the Court's decision, the result would have
been the same. The Court's decision was probably not the Court's best
effort. Looking back, it could have been explained better than it was.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:51:01 -0500, wrote:

From an audience Q & A session at one of a series of interviews by Norm
Pearlstine, this one of Sandra Day O'Connor:

Question by Doron Weber, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation: Could you share
your thoughts on your role in the 2000 election?

O'CONNOR: I will tell you, nothing the Courts decided changed the voting
in Florida. There were three recounts, and in none of those recounts
would the end result of the vote for Bush in those counties have
changed. So, regardless of the Court's decision, the result would have
been the same. The Court's decision was probably not the Court's best
effort. Looking back, it could have been explained better than it was.

The Supremes most damaging decision was a true one: The Florida
Supreme Court can NOT make law. That is what they wanted to do. The
law states that election results must be in by such and such a day.
The Florida Supremes wanted to change that. It is unconstitutional
for ANY court to make law. But, OConnor is right. Recount after
recount had Bush the winner.