David Cole has written this article for the Georgetown Law Journal. A snippet from the introduction:

In this Article, I move beyond the debate about Bush v. Gore itself and look instead at its aftermath. My claim is that since the decision, the Court has apparently been on a campaign to rehabilitate itself–to repair its image as an
institution guided by law and constitutional principle rather than partisan politics. One sign of this campaign is that the Justices have been increasingly willing to cross traditional voting lines in cases that capture the public’s attention. Moreover, it appears that, at least in the most controversial cases, conservatives (those held responsible for the result in Bush v. Gore) have more often sided with liberal Justices to reach liberal results than vice versa. In addition, at least some post-Bush v. Gore decisions seem to reflect a renewed emphasis on the rule of law–namely, on that which distinguishes the realm of law from the realm of politics. If so, that development could not be more timely, because some of the most important constitutional issues for the foreseeable future are likely to involve claims of unchecked presidential power in the ‘war on terror.’ In this respect, at least, Bush v. Gore may have had a silver lining.

The article has an appendix of editorials, oped, and law reviews on the topic, rating them as positive, neutral, or critical. I’m not sure I agree with some of the ratings of the law review articles.