Worse (in outcome) than Zimbabwe

I genuinely don't understand this, it doesn't seem logical. It was Al Gore's fault this guy brought down an indefensible judgement, because he asked the courts to intervene? He should have conceded defeat in the face of probable illegality like a previous election loser? If I was mugged in the street and asked for a cop to help, it would be my fault if he awarded the criminal my wallet? And what does textualism have to do with this case anyway? Lawyers irritate me, they seem too much like practicing philosophers, revelling in distorting the law into a caricature of basic ethics.