rather than in selected counties.

He could have voted, in the Senate, not to accept the election results because of the irregularities in Florida.

Note that they may be here just to cause trouble and be divisive.

They won't even admit the election was stolen. Just watch.

There was nothing more he could do after the SCOTUS ruling in Bush v. Gore that would have preserved the republic in its current form. He made the right call at that time.

I will say, however, that I think his attorney, David Boies, made an error in oral argument before the Florida Supreme Court. At one point the Florida Supremes asked Boies whether Florida's electoral votes were in jeopardy, and he said yes. I think he should have said no. Because Boies said yes, he agreed that there was very limited time to conduct the recount. The fear was that Florida's electoral votes would not be counted unless the certification deadline was met, but the truth is that states regularly miss the certification deadline, and that no state has ever had its electoral votes excluded as a result. Those electoral votes still get counted, even if they're not certified by the official deadline. As such, Boies should have argued that the vital, national interests of democracy and fairness demand an accurate count, and that the matter was of such great national import that the American people would be happy to wait to insure that the count was both fair and accurate. History shows that Florida's electoral votes were not in jeopardy at all. They were going to get counted, one way or another. Time was not really of the essence. The republic was not in danger of collapsing as a result of Florida conducting a time-consuming recount. Boies should have argued for democracy and accuracy, not expediency.

Because Boies argued for expediency, the SCOTUS was willing to take up the case on short notice and render up a quick, disastrous ruling that thwarted the interests of democracy in favor of expediency and certainty. As such, I think Boies made a mistake, but I admit that hindsight is 20/20, and I am glad that it was not I arguing before the SCOTUS on that case. To argue that Gore didn't fight, though, seems inaccurate to me.

John Kerry, on the other hand, put up less of a fight than I had hoped for in 2004, but he faced the same problems Gore did--specifically a hostile Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, and a hostile SCOTUS. He capitulated far more quickly than Gore.

-Laelth

the felonious 5 were determined to vote for shrub no matter what.

everything else in the decision was post hoc rationalization, a failed attempt to cover their determination to let their majority overrule the entire electorate.

in short, had boies argued brilliantly, they would have voted for shrub anyway and the text of the decision would have read slightly differently.

That was my point. No way to know for sure.

-Laelth

and shrub needed a favorable decision from the supremes.