Bush v. Gore didn't overturn an election result. It prevented a recount from going forward. The electoral college had not yet met.

The power of judicial review was derived rather logically and directly from Article VI in 1803, and was seen as non-controversial even at the time.

The power to nullify an election would be the broadest and most untethered increase of the court's power in history. The public interest of such a remedy to foreign intrusion would easily be outweighed by the upheaval and chaos such an action would cause and the potentially dangerous precedent it would send. The court would never put itself in that position, full stop. Every serious observer understands it's a fairy tale.

(Maybe Alito, Thomas, or Gorsuch would be willing to overturn an election where a liberal won, since they're bad jurists with little regard for our Democracy, but the liberal justices never would. Roberts never would. Kennedy never would.)

Furthermore, even though I agree that Donald Trump wouldn't be President without Russian active measures, the fact remains there's no credible evidence that vote tallies were changed. Even if the court decided it had the power to nullify an election (which it wouldn't), would anything short of "the votes cast were altered" meet the standard for invalidity?