The party whose SCOTUS justices actually stole a presidential election in such a nakedly partisan way that David Souter didn't even want to bother serving along with those cretins anymore.
2000 was not stolen : https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html
Bush and Gore each could win depending on the method chosen. In fact you could argue if the court didnt make the decision either the Florida Legislature would have to appoint the electoral votes(which would be for Bush) or the election would be thrown to the house where Bush still wins
The FLSC ordered a statewide recount that can never be legitimately verified because SCOTUS chose to intervene, when Bush so conveniently happened to be ahead, and even went as far to block the case from ever being used as precedent. That is a steal. And this of course doesn't even bother to account for Buchanan votes that were meant for Gore. SCOTUS had no right to interfere whatsoever and the fact that Republicans are against federal election laws unless it benefits them is very revealing. But that's to be expected at this point, and you just admitted that Republicans would never accept a non-Bush win in Florida.
Look at that CNN article which shows different methods used in the recount would result in different winners in Florida. So what would you say the solution is to one type of recount method showing a Bush win and another a Gore win.
Keep in mind that the ruling to declare The Florida recount unconstitutional was 7-2, while it was the remedy that stopped any other recount from taking place a 5-4. So if a recount was done there would be yet another fight over the method as different methods produce different results which would drag out again forcing the Florida Legislature to appoint a set of electoral votes which then congress would vote on to see whether they should be accepted or thrown out.
Even if they were thrown out though, Bush wins as the House elects him so I dont see how you can say it was stolen. The only thing that maybe would have changed is the Senate would have elected Lieberman as VP instead of Cheney so you can argue the Vice Presidency was Stolen from Lieberman but not that the Presidency was Stolen from Gore.
Lastly , those Buchanan votes even if they were meant to be cast for Gore were legally cast for Buchanan so while you can make an argument that those votes could be invalidated, I dont see a legal argument to be made that they should be counted for Gore.
Poll
