After catching up on this thread I can see that my previous post to you has no meaning.
I would point out to you Luis that judicial activism moved us from the right to privacy to murdering babies who are almost totally outside the womb and ready and able to breathe on their own.
The problem with judicial activism Luis is that the law is what 5 people say it is in direct contravention to what this nation should and did stand for.
Supporting judicial activism and supporting the rule of law are incompatible notions as witnessed by thirty years of sliding down the slope from "first trimester" abortion to killing them on the way out.
Rights are self evident, for example the right to life, the right to property and the right to travel as one sees fit in this nation.
Questions of liberty can get a little bit stickier. While one has the right to certain behaviors in the privacy of ones home, engaging in the same behavior in the public park is not a right, it's a question of liberty that is best decided by all those who pay for the park. At the same time the same persons have the right to life, property and travel whether or not they are in a public park.
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'...the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice." -- Earl Warren, majority opinion on Loving v. Virginia.
The Massachussets Supreme Court gave the legislature a period of time to re-write laws that they found to be in violation of their State Constitution because they violate the "basic civil rights" of marriage to the person of one's choice..
I don't see your point about Judicial activism here.