Fair enough: but if the Court in Bush v. Gore did what it should not have
done--create a new standard unmoored in social consensus--why not cordon off
the decison rather than encourage its extension by lower courts?  In fact,
the Court actively promoted a limited reading: why would its critics,
yourself included, aggressively seek a more expansive one--or at least a
potentially more expansive one flowing from lower court experimentation? Why
not end the mischief at its source? The answer for some is, that the case
proves irresistibly useful to achieving certain results. Hence a case
criticized as an episode in brazen result orientation becomes the basis for
still more of the same. I do not see how that makes sense--much less
promotes respect for law, or for the proper boundaries for judicial
intervention in democratic life.