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.
Maybe I have my facts wrong, but I don't think any "remedy" Gore sought in the USSC case was all that relevant. Bush was the plaintiff, not Gore. That itself was problematic because neither party in the case (Bush v. Gore) was a citizen of Florida, had voted in Florida, or was ever impacted by the actions of a Florida governing body or court in a way that would stand up to any objective scrutiny in a Federal court case.
Even in a best-case scenario for Gore, all he could have hoped for was a disputed slate of Electors from Florida in the national Electoral Vote. I think even the New York Times later went through the whole case and the various legal disputes and admitted that they could not find a single scenario in which Gore could have won the election.