Four weeks after American voters went to the polls, the outcome of the presidential election could well be decided by the Florida Supreme Court's ruling on Vice-President Al Gore's appeal for a new round of hand recounts.
The seven judges yesterday heard one hour of legal arguments from lawyers for Mr Gore and Governor George Bush before retiring to deliberate.
Mr Gore is appealing against the ruling last Monday by Judge Sanders Sauls in the circuit court in Tallahassee that Mr Bush's officially certified victory in Florida by 537 votes should stand.
Mr Gore's lawyers had argued that it should be overturned because there was evidence that if disputed ballots in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties had been counted, the Vice-President would have won.
Legal observers say that Mr Gore's lawyers face a difficult task convincing the Florida Supreme Court to reverse the decision by Judge Sauls and to order the manual recounting of 14,000 disputed ballots. But it is possible that this could happen.
If Mr Gore loses his appeal, huge pressure will come on him to concede the election to Mr Bush. Opinion polls are already indicating a reduction in public support for Mr Gore, even though he won the popular vote nationally by over 300,000 votes.
But whoever wins Florida will win the election because its 25 Electoral College votes will provide the 270-vote majority required to become the next President.
Two other court cases heard in Tallahassee yesterday could also have a bearing on the election in Florida. These concern complaints by Democrats over irregularities in absentee ballots in Seminole and Martin counties.
The plaintiffs are asking for all 25,000 absentee ballots to be thrown out because Republican officials interfered with applications for absentee ballots with the co-operation of local election officials. If the judges were to agree to do this, Mr Gore would emerge with over 7,000 net votes in his favour and would easily overtake Mr Bush's present lead of 537 votes.
Mr Gore is not a party to these lawsuits by Democratic activists but he indicated earlier this week that they could have a bearing on how he reacts to whatever ruling comes from the Florida Supreme Court. The New York Times and the Washington Post, which have been supporting Mr Gore's demand for hand recounts, have criticised him for raising the absentee ballot cases, as they could mean that thousands of legitimate voters, Democratic and Republican, would be disenfranchised.
Meanwhile, President Clinton has said that regardless of whether Mr Gore or Mr Bush emerges the winner, some supporters will feel wronged.
In a television interview with the Discovery channel, Mr Clinton indicated that he believed Mr Gore was right to seek recounts through the Florida courts.
But he said that close elections do not have to split the country, citing the controversy over the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 when he turned out to be one of the greatest presidents.
Mr Clinton told Rolling Stone magazine that he would have been tempted to run for president again if the constitution would have let him. And, he said, he would have won. "Oh, I probably would have run again," Mr Clinton says in the New Year edition of the magazine.
When asked if he thought he would have been a three-time winner, he said: "Yes. I do. But it's hard to say, because it's entirely academic."