Bullsh%t.
The Court does not lead society, it follows it, simply acknowledging what direction society has already taken.
To use the example of Roe v. Wade, the Court's decision would be utterly meaningless, if societal acceptance of sex outside of marriage was not the norm, and if we as a society had no brought the challenge up to them. The belief that abortion was a woman's right was not created in the vacuum that is the SCOTUS, the argument was brought to them.
You, on the other hand, believe in a form of Judicial activism that would set up the Court as a social engineer, and use the unwillingness of the Congress or State Houses to address sensitive issues directly out of fear of the reaction of the majority voters, to prolong what in many clear cases is an inequity in our laws.
Individuals, who feel that their civil privileges and rights are being violated, and without a voice in our government, and a way to move toward challenging these laws because of the nature of being a minority within the society, need the Courts to hear their arguments, and examine how laws impact the individual.
In Texas, there was not a chance in Hell that the legislature was going to "fix" a bad law, and it was a bad law in spite of whatever you believe.
Now, we LOVE Judicial activism when it suits our purposes, or at least we certainly did in Bush v. Gore, when Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, after spending years fighting the liberal expansion of the equal protection clause, used it to stop the recounts.
Was it activism?
Only if you are a lefty.
I can't get past this Luis, it is indicative of an irrational man suffering from cognitive dissonance.