This is what people are worried about. Not that a legal recount would change anything. But that activist judges would ignore the law and ram through their agendas. Al Franken won by demanding a recount and then fraudulently adding votes. He did it pretty much all in the open.
This is from Wikipedia’s article on Al Franken’s recount victory in Minnesota in 2008:
“Preliminary reports on election night, November 4, had Coleman ahead by over 700 votes, but the official results certified on November 18, 2008, had Coleman leading by only 215 votes. As the two candidates were separated by less than 0.5 percent, the Secretary of State of Minnesota Mark Ritchie, authorized an automatic recount stipulated in Minnesota election law. In the recount, ballots and certifying materials were examined by hand, and candidates could file challenges to the legality of ballots or materials for inclusion or exclusion with regard to the recount. On January 5, 2009, the Minnesota State Canvassing Board certified the recounted vote totals, with Franken ahead by 225 votes.[60]
On January 6, 2009, Coleman’s campaign filed an election contest, which led to a trial before a three-judge panel.[61] The trial ended on April 7, when the panel ruled that 351 of 387 disputed absentee ballots were incorrectly rejected and ordered them counted. Counting those ballots raised Franken’s lead to 312 votes.”
This was a very close race (the margin here was very much a far cry from even Trump’s now officially certified margin of victory in Michigan). I do not wish to sound too much like a history or political science teacher with his textbook, but it is still not very realistic to compare the current situation with Stein and her recount efforts with the above concerning Franken or Christine Gregoire in Washington State in 2004 or Thomas Salmon in Vermont in 2006. Whatever nefarious or unscrupulous activities involving Franken definitely took place before and during the original vote and not the recount.