Mark Levin in his book points out the federal court had no authority over local election procedures and that the Florida court was not the decider either, it was the Florida attorney general and the republican house of representatives that would decide what vote count to keep. The US supreme court took the heat in 2000 to keep elected republicans from having to do it, which would look like republicans selecting republicans(like Al Frankin wants with him). That is why the court said their ruling did not apply to any other cases/elections. This gave democrats argument for democrat activist judges, and attacking the supreme court.
But in general judges always weigh political and practical considerations before making sweeping rulings. Note that liberal courts incrementally enacted social change to avoid a political backlash. Now is considered a good time to force gay marriage in liberal states, 20 years ago it wouldnt fly. And Robert knows you cant throw out 50 years of rulings(too fast) just because they look bogus to you(I know Scalia sometimes argues that you must). From Roberts standpoint there is an expectation of continuity in the law, for reasons of stability.
Since the constituted authorities in Florida were overturned by the Florida Supreme Court the US Courts became involved. It became a controversy within the Law and the USSC is the final arbiter thereof.
There were several issues on which they ruled.
Irrespective of the past I do not believe the Court could afford to undermine the very basis of its existence and will point to a solution if this is really a problem.
I would say that the Court has the highest reputation of any element of government (and it should) and was designed to be above politics. Certainly it is the least affected if not entirely impervious to politics. There is hope that it will work as our Founders intended and not throw itself into political corruption.
If it does then the US as a constitutional republic is finished. Say hello to the People’s Republic.