I didn't dispute whether anything was a deadline. I don't know what you mean here.
"And it doesn’t matter if you say “This isn’t a precedent” when it very clearly is. ALL Scotus rulings are."
Not if the Supreme Court says otherwise.
"The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." - Bush v. Gore
Let me explain it this way.
When you work out your biceps in a gym, there are “positive” reps and “negative” reps. But the funny thing is, YOU WORK YOUR MUSCLE EITHER WAY.
This is the same way with presidential/legislative/court power.
To truly have NOT been a precedent, the Court would have refused the case; but since they took the case, they exercised power and . . . SET. A. Precedent.
It doesn’t matter what they said, by their actions they created a precedent that any subsequent court will have trouble ignoring. And how many times do you see language like “well, we don’t mean this to be used THIS way” being completely ignored?
No, the court will pretty much be forced to act in accordance with precedent here, or make many or their current members look foolish. And no court does that.