I come from a country where the judiciary has been very activist (till recently), and gladly stepped in to check government overreach into the freedoms of individuals deemed to be outside the "norm" in various ways.

I want the US Supreme Court to be way more activist than it currently has the balls to be. I just don't want it's power to be in any way capturable by either political party. Keep that in check, and corruption, build mechanisms to allow for more oversight from the people, and I'm all for a judiciary that gets wildly activist and experimental, trying different prescriptions in different situations.

The idea that a 200+ year old document contains all possible wisdom to deal with the daily lives of modern humans is incredibly quaint. It is honestly pathetic and a sign of a non-serious mind. It's like someone insisting on using Windows 95 to run the James Webb telescope, and insisting that any updates to the OS must take a byzantine process involving faxing over wet plate photographs of hand written documents.

My issue is with intellectually dishonest arsewipes like you who will cry about judicial activism when it is on behalf of some perceived "other" but gladly accept it if it benefits whoever you deep to be part of your in-group. If that doesn't describe you, go read the opinion (the pdf is only 21 pages long) and tell me why this isn't judicial activism.