it was the recount that was stopped. the inital votes had already been counted. there is not enough evidence to prove that anyone was denied their right to have their vote counted, and they did not ignore an entire county in the election results. whether or not the initial count was 100% accurate, we will never know. it can be said with certainty, however, that florida's alleged recount was filled with problems, and there's no way it could have been accurate. testimony during the bush v. gore illustrates this plainly. florida's recount, DID in fact consist of partial recounts of at least one county. certifying these results as valid would mean that rights were abridged. thus the results of the recount were already scewed. if you insist that the initial vote count constituted an abridgment of rights, you must admit that the recount would be just as bad, if not worse. i don't see how anyone would want that. at least in the initial count, they made an effort to count everyone's vote, and not leave some counties partially counted.

just because you didn't like the outcome doesn't make it wrong. if i lived in miami and voted for gore, yeah, i'd probably feel a little burned. but i would still respect the institution, authority and judgementes of the us supreme court, and would never go so far as to say that their ruling was illegal or unconstitutional. supreme court justices are much more well versed in the US constitution than you or i (an assumption, but i think it's an educated one). i therefore trust in their ability to interpret the constitution fairly and aside from their own personal beliefs. as i said before, you don't have to agree with it, but if you don't trust a ruling on one case, you can't trust the ruling on any case.