https://www.cato.org/blog/may-15th-supreme-court-will-finall...
Sample:
Jessop v. City of Fresno. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted immunity to police officers who stole over $225,000 in cash and rare coins in the course of executing a search warrant. The court noted that while “the theft [of] personal property by police officers sworn to uphold the law” may be “morally wrong,” the officers could not be sued for the theft because the Ninth Circuit had never issued a decision specifically involving the question of “whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant, and seized pursuant to that warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment.”
Edit: I will just reply to all of the comments downthread at once because they all seem to urge the same thing. SCOTUS has no incentive to act when the legislative branch is doing something that could easily overturn or not align with their decision, which would render their decision moot. A law that Congress passes overrules any and all SCOTUS precedent on the issue because Congress "legislates against the backdrop of the common law." Further, Congress has the ability to move much faster than SCOTUS: a bill could be passed on less than a month in Congress while it will take at least a year for SCOTUS to reach a decision.
The Supreme Court has the ability to rule on things overnight. A very well known case where they did was Bush v. Gore[0]; The case was argued 11 Dec 2000, and ruled on the next day.
They just generally don’t because ruling overnight would take their focus away from the other cases they need to rule on.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...
> Ultimately, a media consortium [...] hired NORC at the University of Chicago[68] to examine 175,010 ballots that were collected from the entire state, not just the disputed counties that were recounted [...]
That's saying that it was sampled from the entire state rather than "select" counties.
On a broader point, it seems pretty safe to say that a 100% accurate tally of the votes in Florida would have given the state to Gore, but it is unclear if any recount would have given that result. Note that in addition to the infamous hanging chad controversy, there's also a decent chunk of votes for Pat Buchanan in areas that don't match up with his demographic base that were probably meant for Gore.
Or put somewhat differently, Florida in 2000 was a case where the margin of victory was less than its ability to accurately record votes.
This is not supported by any of the sources in the wikipedia page. There don't seem to be any sources saying how the sample was collected from each or which counties. ...you are right it does not say "select".
But regardless, a margin of ~100 votes on a sample of 175K votes is not a margin with which you can make the statement "it seems pretty safe to say that a 100% accurate tally of the votes in Florida would have given the state to Gore" ...that's ludicrous.