Originally Posted by mayonaise
i think you're really reaching now. an individual state's constitution cannot be contrary to the US constitution. you can bet that if a state said to the three branches of the federal government "hey, we're giving up the constitution, so screw you and leave us alone", there'd be some kind of conflict. in fact it happened before, in the 1860s. the supreme court can still rule on a state issues - including state-constitutional issues. go back and read article III. the US constitution makes no mention of state constitutions being untouchable by the supreme court. if you have proof to the contrary, i'd like to see it.
From this point onward I would be arguing the Dershowitz point of view and you would be arguing the Antonin Scalia point of view. This is an issue of constitutional interpretation pertaining to the power of the Court and states rights.
I'm not a lawyer so all I have here is my opinion, which is that the Court should not have stopped a recount of ballots in an election that would have been decided by the final vote count. The Court, not the votes, decided the election, and that is simply wrong.