Question

why did the dissenting justices in baker v. carr argue that the ruling was an example of judicial activism? they believed that the case should have been decided by congress rather than the supreme court. they argued that the ruling gave too much power to the executive branch in redistricting cases. they believed the court was improperly interfering in a political question that should be decided by state legislatures. they felt that the court should have enforced a specific formula for redistricting rather than leaving it to the states.

Explanation:

In Baker v. Carr, the dissenting justices argued it was judicial activism. Judicial activism is when courts overstep. Here, the case was about redistricting. The dissenting justices thought it was a political question. Political questions are usually for legislative bodies (like state legislatures), not courts. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case was seen as the Court interfering in what they believed was a matter for state legislatures, not the judiciary.

Answer:

They believed the Court was improperly interfering in a political question that should be decided by state legislatures.