Take a position: Should justices engage in judicial activism or judicial restraint?Should they interpret the constitution word by word in an originalist manner, or engage in a broader interpretation of the constitution reading between the lines? If both liberals and conservatives engage in judicial activism, is the concept inherently a bad thing?

As you develop your argument, answer the following questions: What was the Court's reasoning behind the Bush v. Gore decision? Why did the dissenters disagree? Do you see evidence of judicial activism or judicial restraint in the verdict? Did the Court's decision amount to judicial lawmaking? Why would some people argue that it is not necessarily problematic that judges engage in policymaking? Are there times when we want the courts to be policymakers? You might consider how our previous discussions on ad hoc federalism may be similar to a person's support or opposition to judicial activism.