No, it's correcting activist state legislatures that gave state court judges this power. Because legislatures have the duty to propose, debate, pass, modify, and rescind legislation, they are necessarily and properly activist.
SCOTUS, pursuing its activist role, is reigning in state legislatures. This has definite 10th Amendment implications.
Legislatures gave judges the power to overturn juries' decisions?
Agreed, though I'm going to quibble with the meaning of "activist" as you've used it here.
I believe judicial activism occurs when judges deviate from the pain sense of the law as written, and/or intended where sufficient commentary allows that legislative intent to be known. Since this decision doesn't appear to be a deviation, but a strict construction, it can't be termed "activist."
The Left has recently attempted to muddy the meaning of "judicial activism," to mean any decision with far-reaching implications. That way, they could paint strict constructiuonist judges as being activist, if that constructionism would overturn stare decisis on matters dear to liberal hearts.
I think you've unintentionally used "activism" in the Leftist sense in the sentence quoted above.