As much as I detested Bush, this isn't exactly accurate as it relates to the election being stolen. First, the suing parties only wanted to count ballots in the 4 counties they had the biggest advantage in, so it would have only generated more confusion and delays than recounting the entire state. Second, full recounts were later performed and in every recount he ended up with more votes than Gore.
You can't keep counting forever or you end up with nobody as president since Clinton was term-limited, and ultimately the decision turned out to be correct. So the people saying that election was stolen are just as much election deniers as the J6 crowd.
There is no constitutional time limit on when election results have to be complete. They have very frequently in the past taken much longer. At the time of their ruling, the SC did not know how the final count would turn out. They did not want to know.
I.e., the majority on the SC was completely OK with the idea of having stolen the election.
Do you have any evidence to support that claim? The issue was the suing party only wanted to recount 4 counties that they had the biggest advantage in - what is a legitimate reason for that?
Also, there are limits base don when the electors are required to meet, and the President was term limited. There is no legal way for him to have remained in office beyond the expiration of his 2nd term.
You can't keep counting forever or you end up with nobody as president since Clinton was term-limited, and ultimately the decision turned out to be correct. So the people saying that election was stolen are just as much election deniers as the J6 crowd.