No, not at all--because it shows their political stripe is more important than law. The case went to the federal guidelines of voting and whether it was correct to re-count only certain counties (democrat) and on the face of it, it is only pandering to the left, not substantiated by law. These judges consistently err on the side of the left and only in rare instances do they agree with strict construction. Whether the issue is parental notification, privacy, private ownership, criminal law, police procedures, jerrymandering, I have an opinion on where they go based on their socialist lite, sometimes heavy decisions.
Well, I agree that Souter and Ginsberg have a decidedly liberal slant in their decisions. But the majority decision in Bush v. Gore had nothing to do with "strict construction," and was an extraordinary act of judicial activism (although the kind of activism that we, as conservatives, apparently approve of).
There is no more telling evidence of just how activist the decision was than the mandate language that it is not to be considered precedential for any purpose.