Breyer
I fear that in order to bring this agonizingly long election process to a definitive conclusion, we have not adequately
attended to that necessary “check upon our own exercise of power,” “our own sense of self-restraint.” United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 79 (1936) (Stone, J., dissenting). Justice Brandeis once said of the Court, “The most important thing we do is not doing.” Bickel, supra, at 71. What it does today, the Court should have left undone. I would repair the damage done as best we now can, by permitting the Florida recount to continue under uniform standards.

Rhenquist
This inquiry does not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures. To attach definitive weight to the pronouncement of a state court, when the very question at issue is whether the court has actually departed from the statutory meaning, would be to abdicate our responsibility to enforce the explicit requirements of Article II.

Ginsburg
I might join THE CHIEF JUSTICE were it my commission to interpret Florida law. But disagreement with the Florida
court’ s interpretation of its own State’ s law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated...Surely the Constitution does not call upon us to pay more respect to a federal administrative agency’s construction of federal law than to a state high court’ s interpretation of its own state’s law. And not uncommonly, we let stand state court interpretations of federal law with which we might disagree.....In light of the constitutional guarantee to States of a “Republican Form of Government,” U. S. Const., Art. IV, §4, Article II can hardly be read to invite this Court to disrupt a State’s republican regime....Yet THE CHIEF JUSTICE today would reach out to do just that. By holding that Article II requires our revision of a state court’ s construction of state laws in order to protect one organ of the State from another, THE CHIEF JUSTICE contradicts the basic principle that a State may organize itself as it sees fit....Federal courts defer to state high courts’ interpretations of their state’s own law. This principle reflects the core of federalism, on which all agree.

Souter
Whatever people of good will and good sense may argue about the merits of the Florida court’s reading, there is no warrant for saying that it transcends the limits of reasonable statutory interpretation to the point of supplanting the statute enacted by the “legislature” within the meaning of Article II.

Breyer
The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume.... there is no justification for the majority’ s remedy, which is simply to reverse the lower court and halt the recount entirely.  An appropriate remedy would be, instead, to remand this case with instructions that, even at this late date, would permit the Florida Supreme Court to require recounting all undercounted votes in Florida...and to do so in accordance with a single-uniform substandard.... Whether there is time to conduct a recount prior to December 18, when the electors are scheduled to meet, is a matter for the state courts to determine. And whether, under Florida law, Florida could or could not take further action is obviously a matter for Florida courts, not this Court, to decide. See ante, at 13 (per curiam).

Stevens
When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers.

What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’ s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.