Moores's main activism has been in the area of deeds and remarks rather then in the area of judical opinions, to the best of my knowledge. I will take a look at his printed opinions if I can find any.
#510: Lawrence v Texas where stare decisis was ignored and European mores were cited?
#505: The SCOTUS never contracts precedent, it always expands on it. The inevitable result is culture wars among the citizenry because the losing side in whatever case is being heard feels as if they and their elected legislators have been shut out of the debate.
So precedents are bad when you don't like them and good when you do. It sounds to me like you don't care what the mechanism is or what principles are involved so long as the outcome is the result you like.
Was Marbury v MAdison judicial activism?
Yes, it was. The Constitution as written left out a procedure for review. There is clearly a need for review. The SCOTUS created that function, with the acquiescence of the Congress and the President. Just because something is not mentioned in the Constitutional that does not make it unconstitutional.
[The Constitution does not explicitly authorize many existing functions and departments of the federal government. Not to get into another debate, but the Air Force is such an example.]