NOT the law of the land?

Wait, you missed the Supreme Court's election ruling?
No, not the divided decision that handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush.
The high court ruled unanimously Friday that Ohio's secretary of state -- its top elections official -- was right in refusing to disenfranchise tens of thousands of Ohioans because of typos, computer glitches or other minor problems tied to their voter registrations.
Republicans were outraged -- or, in the words of one GOP loyalist seen widely on TV and the Internet in recently weeks, MAD, REALLY MAD!!! -- about the Supreme Court ruling.
"Do your job!" a miffed -- REALLY MIFFED!!! -- Kevin DeWine, Ohio Republican Party deputy chairman, huffed at Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
So, let's step back for a moment:
When a divided Supreme Court directs Republican Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to end county election board recounts allowed by state law, the GOP faithful declares, "It's the law of the land!" and smears Democratic protesters as whiners.
But when a unanimous high court directs Democratic Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to allow registered voters from both parties to cast their ballots, the Ohio Republican Party "believes there are still avenues in the state courts" to skirt the high court ruling.
I get it:
When the U.S. Supreme Court rules in your favor, it's game over, check mate, topple the king.
But when the Supreme Court rules against you, it's a matter of "states' rights."
Is this a case study in hypocrisy?