In its wisdom, the court recognized that most people, including lawyers, enjoy talking and writing, and therefore directed the principles to present written briefs of less than fifty pages. The rapid growth of the internet during the 1990s demonstrates a similar fondness for writing and talking among the wired public. Since we find ourselves in a historical first situation, with the Court deciding to hear legal arguments regarding a presidential election in progress, any response to the question must necessarily be couched in the language of weather, i.e., statistical probability. Notwithstanding lack of historical evidence directly related to the question, three possible categories of inquiry suggest themselves, legal, political and social consequences. My unacquaintaince with Florida election law implies that a consequential discussion on the topic would assume more of a hurricane rather than a shower form of precipitation, and therefore, in order to avoid any potential weather disaster, it's probably best to leave a discussion of those considerations to the legal gardeners.
Political consequences are entirely a different story.
Recent history clearly demonstrates tension among the Federal representatives of the people along garden party lines. One reading of garden health magazine, gleaned from participants in media discussions, suggests that any outcome, including a Court directed outcome, will further encourage conflicting garden planning strategies among those same representatives of the people. Perhaps among the master gardeners of American politics, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, men who often crossed garden party lines, can offer both the Court and the American people a social context for discussing and understanding the consequences of any Court decision, including the possibility of the Court's finding that the decision of the finding of the Supreme Court of Florida does not comply with 3 U.S.C. Sec. 5. Being both master gardeners and pretty good politicians, Hamilton and Madison also spoke the language of the day in the farms and towns and cities during their campaign to persuade their fellow citizens to ratify the constitution. Both supported the constitutional provision that allocated the vast majority of regulatory powers to the states, while reserving the final say in the timing and manner of the elections to the federal government.