In the Hoffman v. Jones case (#43443) @ Florida Supreme Court:

Is the court making new law, or interpreting the law? Consider the general premise that it is the role of the legislature to make the law, and the courts to interpret the law. Is the court overstepping its bounds? Is this judicial activism? Or is the court interpreting the law to prevent an unjust result? Is the court interpreting existing law, or is the court ignoring the longstanding precedent of prior Florida court decisions? Should this have been the role of the courts, or the legislature?