Why didnt the 2000 election dispute get resolved by congress

[OSR stands with Israel]

After the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that that recount was unconstitutional, and 5-4 that there wasnt enough time to conduct a proper recount, shouldnt florida electors have been contested and decided by congress on how to resolve that dispute.  In 1876 there were states in dispute like florida was in 2000 and congress decided to resolve it. Shouldnt the same thing have happened in 2000(as the court didnt rule bush won, it just ruled florida didnt have enough time for a recount) and the house and senate should have decided who should have been president.

[Dereich]

After the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that that recount was unconstitutional, and 5-4 that there wasnt enough time to conduct a proper recount, shouldnt florida electors have been contested and decided by congress on how to resolve that dispute.  In 1876 there were states in dispute like florida was in 2000 and congress decided to resolve it. Shouldnt the same thing have happened in 2000(as the court didnt rule bush won, it just ruled florida didnt have enough time for a recount) and the house and senate should have decided who should have been president.

Because the electors were no longer in dispute. Electors are chosen by the states individually by each state's laws. The Florida law in question said that the Secretary of State would certify the electors for the candidate who received the most votes. She certified the Republican electors. The whole point of Bush v. Gore was determining whether her certification was proper. Once they said that it was the dispute was over. Florida had chosen its electors by Florida law. Even if Congress or the public thought that it was still contested it was no longer legally contestable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Black Congressional Caucus did try to raise the issue, but under the standing rules applicable to the counting of Electors they needed a Representative and a Senator to jointly raise the point in order for it to be considered and at the time, there were no Black Senators and no other Democrats joined them in their quixotic effort save one other Representative, Peter Deutsch. Even if they'd forced consideration, the rules required both the House and the Senate to find the list of Electors flawed and the House was under GOP control, so there was no chance of success.

[SteveRogers]

The issue in 1876 was that Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina each submitted two conflicting slates of electors, and congress had to decide which, if any, to count. The majority and dissent in Bush v. Gore both referred to the 1876 debacle. The majority, in holding that there was no time for a remedy, cited a need to avoid a repeat of an 1876-style conundrum as one reason for holding as they did. They argued that the country could be thrown into a constitutional crisis if the governor certified one candidate as the winner while the Florida Supreme Court declared another the winner after a recount. (The majority also greatly exaggerated the importance of the December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. Florida should in fact have had until December 18 to complete the recount).