Can McConnell "Hate" Bush v. Gore?

A while back I asked, "Can Roberts Hate Roe?"  That is, should then-nominee Roberts be obliged publicly to state his fealty to the decision in Roe v. Wade, or effectively disqualified if he openly admitted what pretty well every legal academic, at least, acknowledges -- that Roe is a poor piece of legal work?  Should pro-choice Democrats demand not only that he would preserve the conclusion that there is a constitutional right to abortion, but that he praise, or at least not criticize, an opinion that any candid person would admit is more than open to criticism?

As we think anew about potential replacement nominees for Justice O'Connor's seat, we might ask the same question -- this time, of the right.  So, the question for today is, "Can McConnell 'hate' -- or at least criticize -- Bush v. Gore?"  Again, here's an opinion widely derided as unprincipled and incoherent.  Even discounting some of the fervor of the criticism, and allowing for the hasty and pressured circumstances in which it was decided, as I think we must, it is widely viewed as poor judicial work.  Even most of its defenders are tepid, at best, in its defense.  And Michael McConnell openly criticized the opinion at the time. 

I think the answer is yes -- but I note that at least one conservative writer says otherwise, writing of McConnell that his criticism of that case shows that "he’s a solid conservative scholar, but he isn’t partisan enough. He’s argued that Bush v. Gore was a bad decision. That alone should disqualify him; the next time a case like that comes up, we need to be sure of a 5-4 majority."  I admit I don't know if this is a parody or not.  If so, good one.  (The same writer argues that Maureen Mahoney likewise should be disqualifed because she argued the University of Michigan cases.)