Suppose if SCOTUS ruled against Dubya upholding the decisions of the Florida Supremes and a recount using subjective criteria in Democrat-controlled counties gave Gore the presidency? Can you see that some might feel an obligation to treat Gore's decisions and actions as president as tyrannical?
Bush v Gore was a tolerable and reasonable ruling. If courts issue intolerable and unreasonable ones they shouldn't have an expectation of those rulings being respected.
I'd have bitched and moaned about it, but you still have to follow the decision. Otherwise, the opinions of the Court are meaningless because people will only follow the opinions with which they agree. Part of being in a democracy is following the rule of law, even when you disagree with the outcome of that process.
Now if you think that the rule of law doesn't exist, or that you don't want to follow it, then grab your gun and start your revolution. But you cannot selectively follow rulings of the Supreme Court without becoming a worse hypocrite than the Dems.
Bush v Gore was a tolerable and reasonable ruling. If courts issue intolerable and unreasonable ones they shouldn't have an expectation of those rulings being respected.
From your perspective and mine, it was a reasonable ruling. But from the perspective of the Dems, you're wrong. In which case, Democrats in the armed forces could and should refuse to follow all orders of President Bush and states controlled by Democrats should ignore all federal law. The fact is that the Supreme Court was appointed by Presidents, and its members were confirmed in accordance with Constitutional mandates. So as long as you wish to live in a democracy, you've got to follow even those rulings with which you disagree.