activism comes in many forms. The law is defined in a set of words. However as social values in general shift- or technology, or even religiosity- the plain meaning of those words may not be clear any longer. Sometimes a law may be badly drafted anyway and so the plain meaning unclear. That is why judges must be careful to apply intellect and not mere prejudice to making sense of the words. They also call on precedent to shed light. The better a judge is at that the more likely their decisions will be founded in good law. No one has suggested the RBG was ever anything other than meticulous about ensuring her decisions were based in a sound understanding of the law. They just didn’t like her ability to find something in the huge body of law that exists to support her interpretation l. That’s brilliance, not activist.
In any case activist or revisionist or fundamentalist or reactionary is all a matter of perception. Society and social values do not stand still and typically shift ahead of the law. Some people forever resist those shifts but they occur anyway. Each generation is exposed to different experiences that shift over time and reflect economic, technology, neurological and educational changes as well as simple differences in the way they are bought up. Time does not Stand still.
While religious views may shape interpretation the US was not set up as a religious state but rather as a secular state. The division between church and state tends to be a western value but America is rapidly moving to be a religious state and not a democracy. I would call that activist and revisionist. Given that the evangelicals seem to favour literal interpretation of the bible selecting judges as trump seems to be doing, not just as conservatives but in terms of their religious views, is likely to narrow the gap between legal and biblical interpretation. That will make America not much different from Afghanistan or other states it criticises. You already see one possible contender indicate that she believes religious views matter more than the law I think you believe that the law is static. It never has been. We shall eventually see tte consequence of current decision making and I don’t expect it to be any prettier than the move to liberalism is seen by some
in 2016 the republicans refused to process a presidential nomination because it didn’t suit their agenda but now seem likely to try and push it through. That suggests that they are making political decisions They may be using the power they have but to pretend this is about the law and not politics ignores the evidence.
