Calling all Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas fans. Here's you're duty (and Mike, feel free to post directly on here):
Give me a clear and soundly reasoned explanation of these Justices' federalism/state sovereignty principles. Namely, explain their vacating said principles in Bush v. Gore and in the below mentioned dissent. If my use of "vacating" is wrong, explain why.
Here is the Times, today:

After the 2000 census, Colorado redrew its Congressional lines in a way that produced some real contests. One district was divided so evenly that Bob Beauprez, a Republican, won by only 121 votes. But when Republicans won the State Senate last year, they drew new lines that were more favorable to their party. The state's attorney general, a Democrat, challenged them in court.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a well-reasoned decision, held that the redistricting violated the Colorado Constitution. It said the constitution required that redistricting be done every 10 years, after the census, but no more. The United States Supreme Court has long held that when a state supreme court resolves a case based on the state's constitution, respect for the state's judiciary requires the federal courts to stay out of the matter. A majority did just that this week, when it let the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling stand.

The Supreme Court rejected review of the case, saying, correctly, that the Colorado Supreme Court has decided on state constitutional grounds. Thus, the federal Supreme Court should not have a higher say on state constitutional issues.
Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia dissented on the cert rejection. They argued that the Colorado Supreme only purported to decide the case solely on state law. These three, apparently, know the state law of Colorado better than that state's Supreme Court.