Seeing "Red" Over Mr. Andersson's Response to a Vox Populi
Sunday, October 24, 2004
by Violetta Murphy
To Richard E. Berg-Andersson:
I had to re-write this message to you at least three times today before I could finally get it into polite-as-possible form and send it on to you because I can only barely contain my anger at something you wrote in your recent response to Antoine Clarke's 'vox Populi' about the Colorado proposal to split their Electoral Vote this year--- you wrote (and this is what has me seeing "red"!):
<<[T]he fact remains that the Democrats are not going to so willingly give up the advantage if they can still elect John Kerry President even should George W. Bush win the Popular Vote. Besides, to many Democrats, it would all be poetic justice ("you did it to us, now we've done it to you!")- after all, this is a Party in which there are significant elements even now still proclaiming the alleged "truth" of the myth that the U.S. Supreme Court (precisely because the majority of that Court was- and still is- made up of conservative Republican appointees) [s]elected George W. Bush as President four years ago (and, yes, it IS a myth!-- Al Gore actually lost the 2000 Presidential Election [no matter how long thereafter it took him to actually concede it] on 26 November, a good week or so before even the first oral arguments in Bush v. Gore,...>>
and you go on from there, with little real explanation of how you arrived at this conclusion, before then boldly stating your obviously biased opinion that
<<Democrats should have been angry at the workings of the 18th Century concept of an "Electoral College" in an election choosing the first President of the United States to be inaugurated in the 21st Century-- instead, far too many of that Party chose to be far more angry at the U.S. Supreme Court...>>
I am angry because, four years ago, I personally witnessed the taking away of our most precious right to vote from so many: right here in Duval County: I saw friends and acquaintances of mine, neighbors and even members of my family, unfairly and illegally denied their right to vote back in 2000!
I don't care what you, or anyone else who writes for all these right-wing websites that have sprung up all over the Internet in recent years, might say: I am still angry at a Supreme Court that was foisted upon this country by far right-wing politicians whose primary goal is crushing the dreams of the middle class and working poor here in America-- a Court that wrongfully took away my State's right to choose the President of the United States last time!
I used to respect 'The Green Papers', even when I have strongly disagreed with what you might have written there.
I don't respect it, or you, anymore!
Mr. Berg-Andersson responds:
I'm not all that sure to what your "Never again!!" refers: never again utilizing 'The Green Papers'?- or never again allowing what happened in your State during the 2000 Presidential Election and after? Both, I imagine!
First of all, in defense of this website, let me here say that 'The Green Papers' is not at all a right-wing website and I don't honestly believe anyone- at least upon most sober reflection- can honestly say that it is; however, if you- or anyone else- would like to think that it is, you are certainly most free to do so. However, we at 'The Green Papers' have always tried our utmost to be fair and honest in presenting what we have presented here on this site- whether it is mere raw, where not also the most arcane, election or historical data and politicolegal information or my own Commentaries and my responses to 'vox Populi' received from the site's readers. Thus, I strongly disagree: we are fair and non-partisan... if only because we say we are!
Secondly, in my own defense: my sole purpose in my Commentaries and responses to 'vox Populi'- which, I believe, well dovetails with the overarching purpose of 'The Green Papers' as an institution, as an entity- is to tell you-all the "real deal". Now, please know this "real deal" is that which *I* consider to be the truth- though, admittedly, this is defined as merely the "truth" as I honestly see it (with which anyone, such as yourself, is most fully free to disagree: once more, to quote the site's Mission Statement-- "That's Freedom, and that's America!"). I follow two basic principles in so telling you-all this "real deal": principles which were, perhaps, best stated- not by philosophers, logicians, theoretical scientists or theologians- but by two long-deceased Major League Baseball umpires:
"I call 'em as I see 'em" and
"In my heart, I never called one wrong"
Now, this does not mean I am never wrong-- but it does mean that I do my level best to make sure I tell you what I think is right and, in addition, try my utmost to well explain my so thinking. I don't "sugar-coat" things: if I honestly think something that might be "bad" as viewed by at least some of this site's readers is, in fact, the case, I tell you so (as, yes, I did when I said that Al Gore had lost the Presidential Election well before the U.S. Supreme Court first heard Oral Argument in the case of Bush v. Gore, let alone when they actually decided it-- I'm quite sure this statement of mine would be seen as "bad" by those who supported Gore for President back in 2000!) and, more to the point, I tell you why. Doing this, of course, ever runs the risk that I am going to have to say something that someone reading it doesn't at all want to hear-- but it is my obligation as a Commentator for what is, after all, a political website to, as much as is humanly practicable, follow those two baseball umpire-derived premises whilst delivering my opinions on the issues of the day and the political/electoral process.
I'm sorry you can no longer respect either me or this website, but- in my opinion- it is far more important, where someone might take issue with something I have written on this site and I still honestly think I am correct, that I respect myself by continuing to follow these very principles I have tried (no matter how much I might have failed- which is for others, not me, to judge [and you, Ms. Murphy, have so clearly passed your own judgement on that which you so clearly perceive as my failure here]) to most fully embrace in the now nearly five years I have been doing that which I do for 'The Green Papers'.
As for your comments in general: I think, with all due respect, you are doing that proverbial "mixing of apples and oranges" when you talk about what happened in Election 2000, for the counting of the raw vote in Duval- or any other- County in Florida- or any other State- has nothing at all directly to do with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. The recounts of the vote which occurred in Florida throughout most of November into early December (the last set of which- a third batch of court-ordered recounts after a second certification of Florida's 2000 Popular Vote for President- was that which was halted in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on 12 December [after which Al Gore finally conceded and George W. Bush claimed victory the next day]) were of votes already legally cast (if they had been missed- or simply not counted [a so-called "hanging chad" not viewed as a legal vote at first, but declared to be legal upon subsequent examination during a recount]- in the original counting or in any earlier recount, they had been [however retroactive this determination might, in the end, itself have been] legal votes from the very start.
You didn't give me any details about what might have actually transpired (and which you also claim you had "personally witnessed"- so I'm assuming your knowledge of that which you decry was not solely via mere word of mouth) in your County four years ago but it sounds, to me, as if you are talking about people who were not permitted (whether this be rightly or wrongly) to cast a legal vote in the first place. This is quite a different matter from the legality or constitutionality of the recounting the votes of those who had already cast legal votes!
Bush v. Gore was about recounts after the 2000 Election: it was not an attempt to rectify wrongs which might have been done "on the ground" by local election officials on General Election Day (7 November 2000) itself.
You claim that I gave "little real explanation" (in my 23 October response to Mr. Clarke) as to why I might have concluded that Al Gore had already lost the 2000 Presidential Election even absent any reference to the later U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. You, of course, then failed to quote what follows- in my response to Mr. Clarke- the point where you have placed the ellipsis which ends your first quotation of my verbiage from that very response. I here repeat what I wrote in full:
<<Al Gore actually lost the 2000 Presidential Election [no matter how long thereafter it took him to actually concede it] on 26 November, a good week or so before even the first oral arguments in Bush v. Gore, when the second set of recounts [this time ordered by the Florida Supreme Court] were certified [it was this second set of recounts that ultimately became the "official" count, formally certified both to Congress and the National Archives, giving now-President Bush a 537-vote victory in the State]: the admittedly arcane workings of the Electoral Law of 1887 that still- in 2004- governs how the Electoral Vote is ultimately tabulated by Congress [which is, despite the high Court's opinion in Bush v. Gore, still the constitutional "umpire" of any Presidential Election] would have automatically [as a more modern variant of that "machine that would go of itself" the Framers of the Constitution had actually intended the Electoral College to be] given the election to George W. Bush in any event [even had the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the third set of court-ordered recounts still in work the second week in December to go forward]!>>
I hardly think the above qualifies as "little real explanation": however, if my admittedly cursory and rather summary synopsis as to exactly why I think the notion that the United States Supreme Court purposely elected George W. Bush President of the United States in a situation in which then-Vice President Albert A. Gore, Jr. was clearly being denied his all due election to that same high Office is a myth, and not the stuff of History and truth, was not at all good enough for you, then please now allow me to go over it all once again (with feeling!)-- for, who knows?-- we might even need to know all this stuff again in the immediate aftermath of this Presidential Election! ;-)
Let's go back to the very beginning of the Florida debacle in the last Presidential Election- Election Day 2000 itself- and I'll note the appropriate provisions of Title 3, Chapter 1 of the United States Code governing the process of the Presidential Electors meeting and voting in their respective States followed by the counting and tabulating the resultant Electoral Vote (almost all of which hearkens back to what Congress adopted as the Electoral Law of 1887- with the most obvious exception of the date the Presidential Electors meet to cast their Electoral Votes, which is a product of the change in the date the President and Vice-President of the United States take office every four years [from 4 March back to 20 January] as a result of the adoption of the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, effective 1934):
United States Code Title 3, Section 1 (abbreviated, for purposes of citation, as "USC 3 § 1") reads as follows--
The Electors of President and Vice-President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice-President.
In 2000, this "Tuesday next after the first Monday in November"- General Election Day- fell on 7 November (this year- 2004- it, of course, falls on the 2nd of the month). Thus, on Tuesday 7 November 2000, the vast majority of Americans went to the polls (not counting those who might have been voting by mail [where permitted] or by absentee ballot or who had already participated in the now-ever-more-prevalent concept of so-called "early voting") to vote for President and Vice-President of the United States (though they all were, in reality, "appointing"- by their aggregate Popular Vote- Presidential Electors from their respective State [or the District of Columbia]).
USC 3 § 7 reads as follows--
The Electors of President and Vice-President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment, at such place in each State as the Legislature of such State shall direct.
Therefore, in 2000, the Presidential Electors "appointed" back on General Election Day in every State were required to so "meet and give their votes" on Monday 18 December (in 2004, this Presidential Elector Meeting Day will be 13 December). So, there were two important dates involved here back in 2000- the date the Presidential Electors were "appointed" (indirectly via the result of the Popular Vote for presidential candidates [again, nobody really votes for Vice-President!]), 7 November, and the date these Presidential Electors were to formally cast their votes for President and Vice-President, 18 December.
To simplify everything up to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore on 12 December 2000 for the purposes of this response (it will become clear why I am doing so shortly): voters in Florida, like those in the rest of the Nation, dutifully went to the polls on 7 November 2000 and the raw returns coming in from Florida were analyzed by the media reporting these returns "live" that same evening; at first, the State was called for Gore- later, this was retracted as further analysis suggested the State was still too close to call- still later, the State was called for Bush (at a time when Florida's then-25 Electoral Votes for Bush put the then-Texas Governor "over the top" re: the "magic" number of 270 Electoral Votes nationwide needed to elect a President [thus this "call" effectively declared George W. Bush to be the 43rd President of the United States])- but this, too, was- even later- also retracted (with the concomitant embarrassment of an Al Gore about to publicly concede [indeed, he had already called Bush to congratulate him on his victory] and then, suddenly, having to rescind his potential concession). As dawn broke across the United States of America on Wednesday the 8th, we all (with the exception of hard-core minorities of Bush and Gore supporters, each respectively confusing knowledge and reason with belief and faith, who "knew" their man had won and that any evidence to the contrary would "certainly" be the result of the other side trying to "steal" the election) had absolutely no idea who the next President of the United States would be come Inauguration Day, 20 January 2001, because we also had absolutely no idea which of the two Major Party candidates had actually won in Florida.
There was an initial recount by machine in Florida over the next few days, followed by a certification by then-Florida Secretary of State (now Congresswoman) Katherine Harris to the effect that Bush had narrowly won the State's Electors (and, thus, was- indeed- elected President). Gore challenged this decision under provisions provided for "contesting" an election under Florida election law of the time (perfectly acceptable, by the way, despite Bush supporters' "over the top" claims that Gore was merely trying to "steal" the Presidency)-- this first led to those (in?)famous hand recounts which allowed all of us to learn terms like "hanging chad" and the like; Bush sued in court to stop these hand recounts; a lower court said "stop these hand recounts" but was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court (this was on 16 November) allowing the hand recounts to go forward (all of this effectively vacating the earlier certification by Secretary Harris). After yet more judicial wrangling, the Florida Supreme Court made a definitive (well-- at least for the time being! [;-)]) ruling- on 21 November, two weeks after the General Election which started this whole mess- that new hand recounts be done with a new certification to be made by Secretary Harris no later than the evening of 26 November.
Come that Sunday evening, Harris issued her State court-ordered certification that Bush had, even more narrowly than in the initial machine recount (the margin was a mere 537 votes), won Florida and, thus, the Presidency as well. At this point, Al Gore had lost any chance of winning the Presidency, regardless of all that happened afterwards over the next 2 1/2 weeks before the then-Vice President finally conceded (in particular, the Bush appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court- from a separate set of legal challenges in Federal court which had begun even before the second certification had been ordered in State court- which culminated in the decision in the case of Bush v. Gore while Gore, in State court, now "contested"- as opposed to "protested"- the outcome as certified on 26 November [a distinction that, under then-current Florida election law, changed the whole judicial dynamic: in a "protest", one is bringing legal challenges re: an election as yet not officially certified [here, one is questioning actual election returns]; in a "contest", one is legally challenging the official certification itself [in other words, the overall election results])]).
Why do I say that Al Gore had already lost back on 26 November? Because let's take a look at what would have happened had the U.S. Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision allowed the recounts it halted to, instead, continue- or, better still, had there never even been a Federal court component to the whole 2000 Florida issue- that is, had Al Gore's "contest"ing the election (as opposed to his earlier "protest"ing it) succeeded, the third set of recounts ordered by the Florida Supreme Court gone without any legal stoppage by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore and, via those same recounts, Gore would thereafter have been found to be the actual winner of the Popular Vote in Florida. What would then have happened? Would Al Gore have then automatically been considered the duly elected President of the United States?
NO!!... for the leadership of the Florida Legislature, with both houses controlled by Republicans, had already announced they would- if the post-26 November court-ordered recounts were legally able to go forward- have the Legislature (and there is no question the Republicans had the votes to do so!) certify the slate of Bush Electors in Florida. Gore supporters from 2000 might look at this as unethical, despicable, even immoral, but it is- nevertheless- perfectly constitutional, for- per Article II, Section 1, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...: here, the Florida Legislature would merely be "direct"ing Presidential Electors to be "appoint"ed by themselves, rather than according to the Popular Vote of the voters of the State as determined by a State court-ordered recount which- in our hypothetical scenario herein- might well have determined (absent the Bush v. Gore decision we are here pretending, for sake of this argument, never happened) Gore was the actual winner of the Popular Vote (don't like it?-- then amend the Federal Constitution!-- but, to again quote myself, "Democrats should have been angry at the workings of the 18th Century concept of an "Electoral College" in an election choosing the first President of the United States to be inaugurated in the 21st Century-- instead, far too many of that Party chose to be far more angry at the U.S. Supreme Court...": then again, this is the price paid by the Gore supporters of 2000 paying far more attention to winning a battle than actually winning the war!).
Thus, there would have been two slates of Electors from Florida certified and sent to Congress to be counted in the Tabulation Joint Session held two weeks before Inauguration Day, on 6 January 2001: there would have been a slate of Bush Electors "appoint"ed by the Florida Legislature and also, in this hypothetical, a slate of Gore Electors which the Florida Supreme Court would have ordered Secretary Harris (however hard she would have had to swallow before doing so [;-)]) to certify as those "appoint"ed by the Popular Vote of Florida as (finally!) recounted (again, assuming the recounts actually did determine this-- remember, even if Bush v. Gore never happened, the third set of State court-ordered recounts might very well have determined that Bush, indeed, did win Florida!-- since these recounts were halted by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, we'll never really know). What would happen then?
the fourth sentence of USC 3 § 15 reads as follows--
(clause 1) If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate [the Vice-President or, if the Vice-Presidency be vacant, the President pro Tempore of the Senate: REB~A], those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the Electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in Section 5 of this Title to have been appointed [USC 3 § 5 says that "[i]f any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the Electors (NOTE: in 2000, this would have been 7 November- General Election Day: REB~A), for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the Electors (this 'six days before... the meeting of the Electors' would have been 12 December in 2000, this being known as the so-called "safe harbor" date re: resolving any disputes- at the State level- over who the Electors should be: REB~A), such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the Electors (again, 12 December in 2000: REB~A), shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the Electoral Votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the Electors appointed by such State is concerned": REB~A], if the determination mentioned in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of Electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State;
The problem is that, re: the procedures assumed in our hypothetical (the Florida Legislature "appoint"ing Bush Electors, the Florida Supreme Court ordering the "appoint"ing of Gore Electors), neither process could have been fully completed by the "safe harbor" date of 12 December- thus the requirements of USC 3 § 5 would not have been met, hence that which is the essence of the clause of USC 3 § 15 quoted in italics in the preceding paragraph would have been inoperative (since the determination mentioned in said section provided for [that in USC 3 § 5] would not have been made as required by this clause of USC 3 § 15: REB~A).
So, now what?-- the fourth sentence of USC 3 § 15 goes on:
(clause 2) but in case there shall arise a question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what Electors have been appointed, as mentioned in Section 5 of this Title [a section already quoted above in brackets], is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those Electors, and those only, of such States shall be counted whose title as Electors the two Houses [of Congress: REB~A], acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its laws;
Thus, the whole dispute over which set of Electors to count come the Tabulation Joint Session of the newly-sworn in 107th Congress would, therefore, have been dumped into the collective laps of that Congress, since we clearly would- in our hypothetical- have two or more of such State authorities determining what Electors have been appointed (the certification of Bush Electors by the Florida Legislature on one hand, the certification of Gore Electors by the Florida Secretary of State- as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court- on the other).
on to clause 3 of the fourth sentence of USC 3 § 15:
and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid [obviously the case in our hypothetical: REB~A], then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses [again, of Congress: REB~A] shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful Electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed Electors of such State.
OK, so- in our hypothetical- the two Houses of Congress, doing so separately, would have had to determine which slate of Electors to accept: the Bush Electors "appoint"ed by the Florida Legislature? or the Gore Electors certified by the Florida Secretary of State- as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court acting on the result of a third set of court-ordered recounts which, in our hypothetical, has determined that Al Gore actually won the Popular Vote of the State and, therefore, that Gore Electors should be "appoint"ed? If the two Houses "concur" (to use the statutory language) as to which slate of Florida Electors to accept, the 2000 Presidential Election of our hypothetical would then definitively be determined by vote of each house of Congress.
But would the two houses of Congress have actually concurred? The U.S. House of Representatives of the 107th Congress was originally made up of 222 Republicans, 211 Democrats and 1 Independent (Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who would have presumably have been a 212th vote on the side of the Democrats)- there was 1 vacancy (a re-elected Congressman, Julian Dixon, had passed away since the November Election): 218 votes (a majority of the 434 Congressmen of the 107th Congress) would have been needed for the House to determine which slate of Florida Electors to accept-- put another way, 6 Republicans would have had to buck their own Party and join Bernie Sanders and the Democrats in order to have the House accept the votes of Gore's Florida Electors as valid.
Despite the many various and sundry- yet wholly unrealistic- scenarios I myself received via e-mail from Gore supporters in the immediate aftermath of the 2000 Election, there was simply no way 6 Republicans in the newly-elected House necessary for the House to support the counting of the votes of Gore Electors from Florida were going to defect (because there would have been no way for a defecting Republican Congressman to know, for certain, that others in his Party were going to actually be defecting along with him and it would have been damaging, if not outright political suicide, for such a Member of Congress to so vote against accepting the Electors of a Republican- George W. Bush- who [as will be explained shortly] was likely to be elected President of the United States in any event [one can just imagine the conversation said GOP Congressman would thereafter have with the Republican House leadership: "Remember that subcommittee assignment you really really wanted?--- well!..." ;-)]); therefore, I think there is little- if any- doubt that the vote in the House would have been along Party lines and, thus, we can safely assume the House would have voted to accept the Bush Electors from Florida.
Likewise, the vote in the United States Senate would also (for much the same reason as in the House) have been along Party lines: except that, therein, the Party division was equal: 50-50... literally! Thus, the equally divided Senate would have produced a tie vote and who gets to break a tie vote in the Senate?: per Article I, Section 3, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution: the constitutional President of the Senate, the Vice-President of the United States- on 6 January 2001 (the date when all this would have been transpiring), Al Gore himself!! Now, Al Gore could have, if he so wished- given our hypothetical, hypothetically performed a statesman-like act (perhaps stating it as being "for the good of the Nation, the unity of our country" or some such) and cast his tie-breaking vote to count the Bush Electors from Florida. If he done so, both Houses would have "concurred" per what we have quoted from USC 3 § 15 so far, the votes of the Florida Bush Electors would have been duly counted in the resumed Tabulation Joint Session and, at the end of that session (just as had happened in reality that afternoon), George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would have been declared the constitutionally elected President and Vice-President of the United States of America.
Of course, Vice President Gore never, in reality, faced that which he faces in our hypothetical, so we have no way of knowing just what he would have done: however, let's assume- in order to take our hypothetical to its furthest possible conclusion- that Al Gore, instead, cast his tie-breaking vote in the Senate in favor of counting the vote of the Gore Electors from Florida. The two houses of Congress, thereby, would not have "concurred"- that is, they would not have agreed as to which Florida slate to count. Now what?
We now turn to the fifth sentence of USC 3 § 15, which reads as follows--
But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the Electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the Executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.
Who, back in 2000, was (and, for that matter, still is) this "Executive of the State"- that is, the Governor of Florida? Jeb Bush, of course! Put aside the fact that he is George W. Bush's brother; the more important fact is that he is a Republican and that he would almost certainly have certified the Bush Electors once they had been "appoint"ed by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature as in our hypothetical. So, where both houses of Congress disagreed in our hypothetical, it still would have been the vote of the Bush Electors from Florida that would have been officially counted and, again, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would have still been declared the constitutionally elected President and Vice-President of the United States of America by the resumed Joint Tabulation Session of 6 January 2001. There was, after 26 November 2000, no way for Al Gore to become President! (and, lest one think my position herein is at all revisionist, please note that I wrote so at the time- in a Commentary entitled 'QUIT WHILE YOU'RE BEHIND!')
It's all very simple, really: once Bush had been certified the winner in the second certification of the 2000 Florida Popular Vote for President on 26 November (per the Florida Supreme Court's order of 21 November), changing Gore's legal challenge of that determination in State courts from "protest" to "contest"- and with a Republican-dominated Florida Legislature hell-bent on protecting that second certification- any third certification of Gore Electors from the State as the result of a third court-ordered recount was doomed, even had the dispute gotten all the way to Congress.
I, therefore, stand by my contention that the Democrats should have been more angry at the concept of an Electoral College than the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore... then again, maybe Democrats should have been even more angry at President Grover Cleveland (a Democrat, by the way!), because it was he who had signed the Electoral Law of 1887 (as I've said, the basis of almost all the provisions of the United States Code I have quoted in this response, statutory provisions which would have prevented the election of Al Gore as President even had the recounts halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, instead, gone forward) into law!
I also stand by my contention that the very idea that the U.S. Supreme Court [s]elected George W. Bush as President is, indeed, mere myth. Anyone out there is free to disagree-- but they would then have to explain just how Al Gore could have overcome Title 3, Chapter 1 of the United States Code once the Congress of the United States- that very "constitutional 'umpire' of any Presidential Election"- had gotten involved (where that very Chapter of Federal statutes does not allow Congress to at all evade getting involved, going all the way back to the Electoral Law of 1887).