Florida's Republican Governor, Mr Jeb Bush, and the state's Republican-controlled legislature have been engaged in a rhetorical and political battle with the Florida Supreme Court for the last 18 months.
Now, that same court may decide the fate of Mr Bush's brother, Texas Governor George W. Bush, and the presidency of the US.
By late yesterday, two of the legal disputes over the count of Florida's presidential votes were already before the court, and others appeared on the way. At least two Florida counties - Volusia and Broward - decided to ask the court to review a Tallahassee judge's order permitting the Florida Secretary of State, Ms Katherine Harris, to enforce a 5 p.m. deadline for counties to report their vote counts.
Meanwhile, Palm Beach and Volusia officials asked the court to clarify competing legal opinions issued by Mr Clay Roberts, the Republican director of the state division of elections, who informed Palm Beach County that it did not have a legal right to conduct hand recounts, and Mr Bob Butterworth, the Democratic state Attorney General, who said that the county did have a right to do so.
And the court may yet have to deal with the allegedly confusing "butterfly ballot" used in Palm Beach County, which is being challenged in a series of voter lawsuits in lower state courts.
The recent battles between Mr Jeb Bush and the seven justices of the state Supreme Court, all appointed during the terms of Democratic governors, have some Republicans worried about how these cases will come out. The Florida governor in June charged that the court hurts crime victims by contributing to "unnecessary delay and legal gamesmanship" in considering death penalty cases.
Just two months ago, he responded to one ruling by suggesting that the court does not respect the will of the voters.
The tension grew so bad this spring that Republican state lawmakers unsuccessfully tried to realign the court by appointing two new members and stripping it of some of its powers.
"Judges are theoretically above being influenced by emotions, but the odds are that some can have twangs of anger like the rest of us," said Republican state committeeman Mr Tom Slade.
"Generally speaking, I think the justices are too distinguished a group of people to let a personal vendetta influence their decision, but if someone in the Republican Party has made them mad, I suspect they wish at this time that they hadn't."
Despite the concerns, several former state Supreme Court justices and other legal analysts in Florida argue that the court won't be influenced by politics.
While the cases put the court in an uncomfortable position, former justice Ben Overton said that the court "will just have to fasten their seatbelt, and I know they will rule based on the law". If it sticks to its recent case law on disputed elections, it may well be inclined to overturn the deadline set by Ms Harris.
Four of the current members of the court joined in its unanimous 1998 opinion in Beckstrom vs Volusia County, which arose out of a dispute over the tabulation of absentee ballots in a non-partisan sheriff election waged between two Republican candidates.
That case contains language emphasising the value the justices placed on making sure all voters are heard, and implies that an election can be valid even if election officials have acted only in "substantial compliance" with voting laws as opposed to "strict compliance".
"The real parties in interest here, not in the legal sense but in realistic terms, are the voters," the court said.
"By refusing to recognise an otherwise valid exercise of the right of a citizen to vote for the sake of a sacred, unyielding adherence to statutory scripture, we would in effect nullify" the right to vote.