Okay, I've got Alan M. Dershowitz, Cass R. Sunstein, Richard A. Epstein, and Vincent Bugliosi. Still a long way from an "overwhelming scholarly assessment." Gosh, that kind of phrase is easy to say, and so hard to back up.

I recommend you check on these guys and find out exactly how unbiased they are. Hell, Dershowitz represented Gore in Florida. What else do you expect him to say?

Rule-of-Law.com? How many Republicans in THAT bunch do you think?

Inconclusive results of the media count? Stop and think. Assuming the author is even right, why would they be "inconclusive?" Is it possible that given the complete loss of any standards by which votes could be counted, and their replacement with arbitrary standards set almost on a county-by-county basis, that ANY recount would have been inconclusive? Or maybe the author just didn't like the results. One wonders if the media counting results had overwhelmingly favored Gore if the legal affairs editor of The New Republic would have labeled them "inconclusive?"

Trotting out a list of pro-Gore legal types, some obviously so, doesn't make your point, although I suppose it does allow you to indulge in the fantasy of what a paradise America would be right now if Gore were President.

Look, I could probably trot out just as long a list of legal people who AREN'T rabidly pro-Gore to make the opposing point. And you know what? I don't think that would prove anything either. Legal arguments and objectivity often have little to do with each other.

You did see my point that the recount showed that the Supreme Court decision would have made no difference? That this entire argument is completely moot? Or have you mentally blocked that out already?