There are a number of threads that discuss this from back in the day. In addition to what rj said, a huge problem for me is that the Constitution has a procedure for deciding contested presidential elections: it goes to teh House. That the House was majority Repub and would have elected Bush does not matter. It should have gone there and not the USSC. Also, the fact that they made the ruling invalid for citing in future cases adds to the thought that it was a political decision. Why wouldn't a dramatic USSC ruling be allowed to establish precedent?
I think a la Burr-Jefferson or Jackson-Clay-Quincy Adams, the electoral votes would need to all be accounted for and certified by the states. Furthermore, that final tally would needed to have been re-certified by Gore and I don't think there's any kind of a conflict of interest clause that would have precluded him from rejecting the Florida votes until his cases were favorably settled at the highest court possible. I think the House understood that they had to let state Secretary Harris, then state Courts, and then Federal courts in validating state decisions, rule on the matter so as to avoid yet another controversial legislative action so soon after they'd ruined and had to kill the Independent Counsel law. Don't think there wouldn't have been some very large, coordinated push for a constitutional amendment had this not gone credibly enough for all constitutionally relevant parties involved.
