The bitterness which remains in the aftermath of the closest and strangest presidential election in modern US history was palpable on the pages of the Supreme Court decision which has almost certainly handed victory to Governor George W. Bush.
The US Supreme Court is a dignified body, keenly aware of its history and its legacy. Even in its frequent 5-4 split decisions, the court normally keeps its language in check, nodding to politesse and decorum.
Not so this time. Dissenting opinions are almost always signed with a final quote, "Respectfully, I dissent." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a former law professor and academic appointed by President Clinton in 1993, offered a blistering written dissent, but signed it emphatically, "I Dissent," omitting the word "respectfully".
Like the other justices, Ms Ginsburg was aware that this case was probably the most important one on which she will ever decide, and that her dissent will be read and re-read by scholars and historians for decades. Her omission of a word was not insignificant.
With the court divided between moderates and conservatives, the four dissenters said the majority had no right to prevent votes being counted and that the court had badly damaged its own standing in the nation.
The split on the nation's highest court reflects the split that earlier plagued the Florida courts, as well as the near-even split among the voters between Mr Bush and Vice-President Al Gore. Now, the future president - presumably Mr Bush - will also face a near evenly divided Congress and Senate.
What will it mean for the Democrats, and specifically, what will it mean for Mr Gore's future?
Opinion among political analysts and prognosticators is divided. There is much anger among some core Democratic constituencies who believe that the Florida election results are simply not legitimate. Many African Americans, led by the Rev Jesse Jackson, believe that black voters were disenfranchised in Florida, discouraged or even actually prevented from voting, and a lawsuit or two is expected on the score.
Mr Jackson even said Mr Gore should not concede. "Literally thousands of voters who did vote - their vote was taken away," he said, comparing the decision to an 1857 Supreme Court ruling which upheld slavery. "This is a narrow, ideologically driven decision with extreme politics that in the end deprives the court itself of moral authority," he said.
But many among those same core groups - blacks, labour unions, women's groups, for example - are also quite angry with Mr Gore. Among them, there is no apparent groundswell for a Gore candidacy in 2004. Their desire to end Mr Gore's quest was obvious as many of them took to the airwaves in the hour after the decision was announced, without even consulting the Vice-President.
"Clearly the election has come to an end," Senator Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat, told MSNBC. An influential Senator, Mr Torricelli was among those who first urged Hillary Clinton to run for the Senate.
Representative Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, said the US Supreme Court ruling was "politically disappointing. We have a divided House, a divided Senate, a divided nation and unfortunately, a politically divided Supreme Court." These Democrats believe Mr Gore was the beneficiary of the most prosperous economy in US history. With peace and prosperity on his side, they believe he simply blew the election. He should have won, they contend, and he should have won easily.
Instead, he ran a bad campaign, distancing himself from President Clinton, arrogantly failing to solidify his base in the south (Mr Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and Mr Clinton's home state of Arkansas) and relying too heavily on consultants who kept changing his image.
Given that disillusionment with Mr Gore's campaign, many Democrats are looking elsewhere for their presidential candidate in 2004. It is not Mr Gore's conduct since election day that has prompted this; it is the failing campaign that preceded it.
There is no question that a divided Congress, along with the lingering questions about the legitimacy of a Bush presidency, will probably not produce sweeping political initiatives in the US in the next four years. A revamp of the healthcare system is unlikely, as are the prospects for real campaign finance reform.
For now, various names are being bandied about as potential candidates for 2004: Senator Joseph Lieberman, who is thought to have improved his visibility and status as Mr Gore's running mate; US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may be the most prominent Democrat in America in the next four years; Senator Bob Kerry or even Mr Bill Bradley, who may have learned a thing or two in his primary race against Mr Gore.
Top Congressional leader Mr Richard Gephardt is also frequently mentioned.
The fact is, however, that George W. Bush will take office in an unprecedented fashion before a country which is divided. If there is political paralysis in Washington, as many predict, it is almost impossible to predict which party, if any, will benefit.
This election showed a great deal of ambivalence toward both parties, a sentiment which could grow to the point where a serious third-party candidate could emerge in 2004.