How did the dissenting justices interpret the safe-harbor deadline differently from the majority?

In Bush v. Gore, the majority and the dissenting justices held fundamentally different views regarding the "safe-harbor" deadline (3 U.S.C. §5).

The majority argued that the Florida state legislature intended for any "appropriate" relief in election disputes to be completed by this federal deadline. Consequently, they concluded that no constitutionally proper recount could be finished in time, effectively halting the process.12

In contrast, the dissenting justices rejected the notion that this deadline prohibited further vote counting:

• Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the safe-harbor provisions merely established rules for Congress to follow when selecting between conflicting slates of electors; they did not forbid states from continuing to count legal votes until a winner was determined.2
• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserted that the December 12 deadline lacked the significance assigned to it by the majority. She maintained that even if the date passed, Florida would still be entitled to deliver electoral votes that Congress would be required to count.2
• Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the Florida Supreme Court was better positioned to determine if a recount could be completed before the Electoral College met on December 18.2