Can Republicans insure perpetual control of the House by refusing to seat elected Democrats? A judge's ruling would seem to say, "yes."

Maybe I'm mis-understanding somthing here. If so, somebody please correct me. A judge has ruled that no challenge can be brought to the election in which Democrat Ruth Busby lost to Republican Brian Bilbray in their race to take Duke Cunningham's vacant House seat. The reason, apparently, is that the House of Representatives has already seated Bilbray, and under Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, only the House of Representatives has jurisdiction over its members races:

For the controversial ruling, Judge Yuri Hofmann relied on arguments brought by attorneys representing Bilbray and San Diego’s Registrar of Voters to dismiss the case, relying on Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution to find that only the House of Representatives has jurisdiction over its members' races.

Now, if I read that correctly, it would seem to be saying that even if candidate A won the election by an overwhelming majority, as long as the House of Representatives decided to seat the loser, B, A would have no rights to challenge the decision to seat B.

That sounds to me like exactly the kind of world Tom DeLay would love. Since the Rethuglicans now control the House, they could guarantee perpetual control of the House by only seating Republicans regardless of the outcome of the elections.

Sure doesn't sound like Democracy to me.