No, not Bush v. Gore. The 1876 Election. the Chief Justice has written a book - "Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876."
While Lithwick gives Rehnquist a pass, what else is new - http://www.slate.com/id/2097175/
However, the great Prof. Eric Foner gets it right - "Actually, the outcome in Bush v. Gore seems far less defensible than the actions of the Electoral Commission. In 1877 Justice Bradley concluded that the commission could not possibly conduct its own detailed inquiry into local election returns and thus had no choice but to accept the findings of local election boards (all Republican) as to who had carried their states. Bradley's position, as Rehnquist argues, was certainly "reasonable." Unlike his successors in 2000, Bradley did not invent a new constitutional principle (equal procedures in the counting of ballots) to reach a predetermined verdict and then add that this principle applied only in the specific case at hand. Bradley seems to have tried to rise above the immediate political situation, unlike Justice Antonin Scalia, who in 2000 insisted that the Court needed to insure "public acceptance" of a Bush presidency. It is unlikely that Bradley would have gone duck-hunting with a litigant before the Court.
Rehnquist acknowledges that the Justices who accepted assignment to the Electoral Commission
in 1877 "may have tarnished the reputation of the Court." This book will do nothing to rehabilitate the reputations of the five Justices, including Rehnquist himself, irreparably "tarnished" by their actions in 2000."
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040329&c=2&s=foner