Where I am shooting you down in flames is your consistent use of words like "overwhelming," "unanimous," and others that imply that almost everyone in the legal community agrees with you.,

This is patently false.

Read one of your own links, which shows a sharp division between two equally qualified legal authorities, as far as credentials go.

The book reviewer seems to contradict himself in a single paragraph, in fact, one you actually quoted (boldface and italics mine):

The overwhelming scholarly assessment is that the ruling in Bush v. Gore is a poor model of judicial reasoning. It is unsteadily grounded and hard to square with the justices' previous decisions, and it reduces confidence in the court. Most analysts simply find it impossible to swallow the idea of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor, Kennedy and Thomas, who have spent years fighting the liberal expansion of the equal protection clause, seizing upon it as a basis for stopping a voter recount.

But on the decision's overall legitimacy and appropriateness, commentators are divided. Not evenly divided, to be sure, given the liberal bent of the legal academy, but the split is deep and troubling. It is well represented by these two books.

So is it a good decison or not? Is the opinion "overwhelming" or "divided?"

...That two such nimble and serious legal thinkers as Dershowitz and Posner can arrive at such opposing conclusions speaks to the distressingly subjective nature of the law. Some 50 court cases resulted from the Florida electoral tie, and every single one of the rulings is open to legitimate competing interpretation. Since the law is supposed to serve as an anchor under shifting political seas, this can be disconcerting to contemplate. It is especially upsetting in this case because if Gore had held the lead and Bush had sought the recount, it seems most unlikely that the justices and scholars would have taken the same positions.

No shit. Bias counts here, and as one example, holding up Dershowitz as some "unbiased" opinion is laughable.

I recommend reading the entire article you quoted, including Dershowitz's comments on the judiciary at the end. I don't think you did.