Here is the big picture:
7 Justices agreed that the Florida Supreme Court's undervote count order
had constitutional problems
(all but Ginsburg and Stevens)
5 Justices agreed that it was too late to try and find a way to conduct
the recount in a constitutional manner
(Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, O'Connor, Kennedy)
4 Justices argued that there was no justification for stopping the recount
entirely and that it was not for the US Supreme Court to decide if it was
too late to even try it using a more uniform standard
(Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Souter)
4 Justices argued that the Florida Supreme Court did not violate Federal
Law and that the US Supreme Court has no right to interpret Florida
Law in a manner inconsistent with the State Court's interpretation.
(Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Souter)
3 Justices argued that the Florida Supreme Court violated Federal Law
by changing state election law
(Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas)
3 Justices argued that the US Supreme Court had no business taking this
case
(Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer)
3 Justices argued that the Equal Protection argument could not be applied
only to the counting of the undervotes after Dec. 8, but should be applied
to all the votes counted after Election Day.
(Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer)
2 Justices did not see consitutional problems with the Florida Court's
counting standard
(Stevens and Ginsburg)
Bottom line, had their been more time, the statewide undervote count
could have occurred under more uniform standards.
Here is how all the opinions and decisions breaks down:
One Majority Decision in two parts. The first part revealed a 7-2 agreement that the current undervote count order raised a significant Equal Protection problem. Basically, seven Justices felt that the recount could not continue using the "intent of the voter" standard. The second part concerning what to do about it (i.e., the remedy) was endorsed by 5-4 split. That remedy said that it is simply too late to try and address the problem. Of course, this latter part was the one that effectively ended the election and gave it to Bush.
As to this decision, there were 5 separate opinions written, one of
which was a concurring opinion and the remaining 4 were dissenting opinions.
1) The Rehnquist concurring opinion - joined
by Scalia and Thomas
It concurred with the majority decision but took
it a step farther and argued that the State Supreme Court violated federal
law by changing state election law after the election..
2) The Stevens dissent - joined by Ginsburg
and Breyer
Argued that the Supreme Court should not have taken
this case.
3) The Souter dissent, written in three parts. Breyer joined the entire opinion and Stevens and Ginsburg joined both Parts A and B but not C.
Parts A and B - argued that the Florida Supreme Court did not violate federal law, specifically Article II of the constitution and Title 3 Section 5. This part of the opinion is a direct response to the Rhenquist opinion.
Part C - argued that the count should continue using uniform standards
4) The Ginsburg dissent, written in two parts. Stevens joined the entire opinion with Breyer and Souter joining only Part 1.
Part I - states should be allowed to interpret their own laws; the US Supreme Court should not get into the business of interpreting them itself. This is a scathing rebuke of the Rhenquist opinion.
Part II - the equal protection concerns should not be limited to just the counting of the undervotes and that it is not for the US Supreme Court to decide if the clock has run out
5) The Breyer dissent, written in two parts -- Stevens and Ginsburg join the entire opinion except for two paragraphs in Part 1 and Souter joined only Part 1
Part I - Says there is no federal violation here of any federal law (Stevens and Ginsburg don't concur with Breyers assertion that the under vote count could continue under the intent of the voter standard).
Part II - The US Supreme Court should not have completely
stopped the counting of the undervotes