Brings to mind the seemingly endless Franken v. Coleman U. S. Senate race recount in Minnesota in 2008. In that one, the initial results (a narrow Coleman win) were turned upside down after repeated selected recounts under aegis of Democrat state officials, with the alleged Franken victory in the recounts upheld by the 'Rat majority state Supreme Court. It certainly seems that partisan politics trumped the rule of law there, and without any SCOTUS intervention, Coleman stood exactly where Bush might have stood had the SCOTUS not intervened and let the FL Supreme Court play it its recount games in 2000. (Why Coleman didn't seek SCOTUS intervention is beyond me.)
Because with Bush v Gore, it was a national impact where we can't allow different states to manipulate the Presidential vote. Or, in other words, states undermining each other's votes.
As we saw with the Torricelli - Forrester Senate race, SCOTUS refused to intervene when Forrester challenged the replacement of Torricelli with Lautenberg on the grounds that it was a single state issue. The same was likely true when Dino Rossi refused to challenge the recount shenanigans coming from Christine Gregoire.
By the time of the Coleman - Franken fiasco, I had hoped that SCOTUS came to realize what their inaction in New Jersey had wrought.
-PJ
How about the 2004 WA State Gubernatorial race? After the first recount still had the Republican win they went and had a SECOND RECOUNT. That was a coup d’etat.
Because Repubs don't fight. They cringe and give in rather than be seen as "mean" and "evil." That's why the Dems win every long-term fight.