Bush v. Gore was a direct attack on the structure of the republic. Roe v. Wade is (if you disagree) a flesh wound. BvG is a poison dart aimed at the heart.

How partisan do you have to be to look at this perversion of the very structure of the republic, particularly when committed by people who have claimed to be committed to judicial restraint - a position that holds that maintaining the structure is more important than any particular issue - and say "well, at least the right guy won"? The Judicial branch hijacked the Executive. In RvW, they (maybe) encroached on the Legislative, here, they took over the Executive.

There is a perpetual tension in the Supreme Court between the idea of justice in this case and the idea of letting things be decided by the correct process. Between activists who want to make this one come out right, and conservatives (in the judicial sense) who want to preserve the process.

In this case, those who had committed to preserving the process dumped it, created a one-shot right based on a weird and unworkable idea of equal protection, voided the election because it violated that newly invented right, declared that there wasn't time to grant that right in this case and that this case would not set precedent so it won't be applied in any future case, and then voted a straight party ticket.

Had activist justices made a similar decision, it would still have been wrong, but it would have gone down easier. This is like Joe McCarthy selling military secrets to the Communists.