There were several decisions.
No, Extrafire, there were only two, one was 7-2, the other was 5-4.
The USSC ruled that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution. Sorry, but the FSC violating the US constitution isn't an insignificant point of law. .
As I said, the 7-2 decision was on a general point of law. Rehnquist knew that he and his conservative friends will be accused of handing down a partisan political judgment. To give himself some kind of cover, he cooked up a general decision, which will have a broader support. That judgement did NOT stop the recount.
Seven justices (the five Justice majority plus Breyer (external - login to view)
and Souter (external - login to view)
) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties. This was the 7-2 decision. This decision says nothing about stopping the recount.
Five justices agreed that December 12 (the date of the decision) was the deadline Florida had established for recounts (Kennedy (external - login to view)
, O'Connor (external - login to view)
, Rehnquist (external - login to view)
, (external - login to view) Scalia (external - login to view)
and Thomas (external - login to view)
in support; Breyer, (external - login to view) Ginsburg (external - login to view)
, Souter (external - login to view)
and Stevens (external - login to view)
opposed). Justices Breyer and Souter wanted to remand the case back to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.
This was the 5-4 decision which handed the election to their buddy, Bush.
Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)
You've made it very clear that you consider any judgment that favors Bush (or anyone else you're opposed to) to be partisan.
It was not just me; most of the Democrats considered it a partisan judgment. Indeed, Rehnquist himself knew that it will be regarded as a partisan judgment. That is why he and Justice Thomas took the unprecedented step of denying that it was a political partisan judgment.
Supreme Court got a big black eye out of the whole affair.