1. With all the talk about the Court deciding the election, there's a subtle - but very important - point about Bush v. Gore that's almost never discussed anymore:

Bush had no standing to sue, and the Court did not have to take, and should not have taken, the case.

2. Bush sued on the grounds that he would suffer irreparable harm if the Florida recount was allowed to continue. But this was plainly absurd: no one knew what the outcome of the recount would be, so there was no way to say that the recount would injure him.

3. As for the equal-protection claim - that voters were discriminated against if different FL counties (or parts of counties) used different recount standards - that involved no injury to Bush at all, since even if the discrimination existed, it was to voters, not to him.

4. The recount was a matter of FL law. The FL Supreme Court had ruled on it. No irreparable harm would be done to Bush by allowing the recount to continue. The Court intervened when it did not need to. As Breyer put it, "What it does today, the Court should have left undone."

5. The point is that the Supreme Court does not have to choose to intervene in an election - it can simply refuse to hear the case, leaving the electoral process to work as it's supposed to.