"I don't think you're correct about the Supreme Court "appointment.""

Except that that IS correct.

"The Supreme Court made a judgment on the results of the 2000 election, based on votes by the people."

No, it did not. It based the appointment on a lie, and serial violations of the Constitution.

First, the SC 5 based their LAWLESS decision in part on a "drop dead deate" which has never, did not, and does not now EXIST. This isn't complicated: AFTER the alleged "drop dead date," CA and other western states (including NM, in which BUSHIT demanded a recount -- without false opposition from Democrats) submitted their slates to Congress -- which accepted them without controversy. NO mention of the "fact" that they got their slates in after such "drop dead date".

In fact, a candidate can contest an election in court for as long as his case has (apparent) legs: it is the right of the voters which trumps.

Second, the Constitution gives EXCLUSIVE authority to resolve election disputes, such as that in 2000, to CONGRESS. The UNELECTED SC has NO legitimate role in DEMOCRATIC ELECTION disputes.

James Madsion knew that. Jefferson-Burr knew that when they took THEIR election dispute to CONGRESS.

Third, that means the SC 5 not only intervened in the election -- which was unprecedented -- and stopped the uncompleted vote-counting -- which was unprecedented -- but it then USURPED -- which is UNCONSTITUIONAL -- Congress' exclusive authority by --

1. Accepting Bush's BS "case" for argument;

2. Hearing arguments on the "case"; and then,

3. Handing down its foundationless -- lawless -- decision, which held, in essence, that there was one candidate who could not be allowed to lose an election: G. W. Bush. His "right" as a CANDIDATE to win the election was based upon law intended to protect VOTERS.

Bushit was not elected -- except by the SC 5, who ILLEGALLY voted TWICE in the same election, for the same candidate. He was APPOINTED after the election was subverted by the very same 5 who appointed him.

As you MIGHT recall, the votes in FL were NOT all counted -- even the first time -- until much later by the newspaper consortium.