So be honest, Sgt. Bill, you're a judicial activist - there's no difference between you and a typical liberal, except with respect to the particular things you'd rather see unelected courts decide rather than the peoples' representatives. No thanks.
The role of the courts with respect to laws enacted by the peoples' representatives is to address bad legislation that denies individuals the protections of the Constitution. Such role would encompass, for example, Brown v. Board of Education and Heller, as well as the recent SCOTUS ruling respecting marriage equality. Stare decisis should never be an excuse to validate a majority's action to deny rights to a minority or (as in the case of Heller) to permit the state to subvert a Constitutional right. That's exactly the context where "judicial activism" may be appropriate. But overturning Roe v. Wade? No, that needs to be done by the Constitutional amendment process. For an unelected court to take away the right of every woman in America to control her own reproductive destiny would be an abomination. Only the political process can take away long-held rights.