HORSE HOCKEY !!!
Actually, she's absolutely right about this. Don't think of the U.S. Supreme Court as an umpire, but as the commissioner's office of Major League Baseball. Just because a manager files a protest against an umpire's call, it doesn't mean the commissioner's office has to hear the case. They can legitimately determine that the manager has no standing to bring the case.
That's exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court should have done in Bush v. Gore. The U.S. Constitution has very clear provisions that covered the situation in 2000, and by agreeing to take on the case, the Supreme Court basically tossed those provisions out the window. If Florida could not determine its own Electoral Votes by the time the Electoral College met, then the national Electoral Vote would be held without Florida's being counted. Neither candidate would have had enough Electoral Votes to win the election outright, so the president would have been elected in a special vote by Congress. Bush would have won that election, too -- so the irony is that the Court's involvement was meaningless in the end.
The Florida supremes and their progressive activism is what caused the SCOTUS to become involved. That is also clear and codified into law. The SCOTUS could either hear the case or refuse and let the Florida supremes stand as law.
LLS
I agree with your facts and argument but not your conclusion. The SCOTUS could have taken the case and then said that the US Constitution governs this situation, and the remedy sought by Gore was not what the Constitution provides, so we are going with the Constitution.