All voters are equal, and all ballots are equal, or else there is chaos. One, in view of the excruciating closeness of the contest, is that every vote counts. The other, propounded by conservative jurists at play in the fields of 18th-century law and values, is that it's not even the case that any vote counts. Or at least, that there's no constitutional right to vote for president. If this means 'actively' striking down legislation or lower court rulings that violate the clear mandates of the Constitution or that exceed the proper powers of a legislature or government official, then that is what we have judges for.
Restraint means staying within the boundaries of the Constitution and of constitutional laws .
The Florida Supreme Court confused their betters on the high bench by claiming that the right to vote is the supreme and sacred rights for every citizen of a democracy. Their power is legitimate only if they give reasoned arguments for what they do. By that standard, the decision in Bush v. Gore was a dismal failure. Florida gave all of its electors to President-elect Bush, even though, while he won a plurality of the popular vote in that state, he did not win a majority. A system that apportions a state's electoral votes based on the popular vote received by each candidate in that state would better reflect the will of all the voters .