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.
