Gareth,
It's precisely because reasonable people disagree on matters of fact as well as on matters of interpretation, that the Wikipedia does not take sides.
The first example you cite implied that the Supreme Court acted "undemocratically" in settling the Florida recount dispute. A Wikipedia article would have to call that a point of view (POV) and attribute it to an advocate, such as the DNC boss (McAuliffe or something). Other people had different interpretations, notably Al Gore ;-)
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm not saying I agree with you or not. I'm not saying I'm happy or unhappy with the decision -- or its outcome.
I'm saying that it's /especially/ because of examples like this, where one person is so sure of the 'truth' that he asserts only a "delusional" person could disagree, that we /must/ adhere to the NPOV when writing Wikipedia articles.
BTW, only a madman could deny that sinners go to hell.
Ha, ha, gotcha going there for a moment, didn't I? (wink wink)
Uncle Ed