2016 Postmortem

at least they were acting on a case brought under a specific Constitutional provision (the equal protection clause, which a 7-2 majority agreed was violated by the state's use of different standards to recount votes rather than a uniform statewide standard). And it relied on a specific Constitutional provision when it concluded (5-4) that they lacked the authority to delay federally mandated deadline for Congress, as the branch of government specifically granted the authority in the Constitution to count electoral votes, had set for resolving controversies over electoral vote certifications.

If anything, that case, which expressly is not entitled to treatment as a precedent in any other case, supports the conclusion that the Supreme Court can't create the remedy you seem to think they can create.