Enough.
When the far right wing says that liberal justices are activists who legislate from the bench and don't stick to the Constitution, they have it ass backwards.
Progressive justices believe the Constitution's decree that all Americans are entitled to life and liberty; they believe a woman's liberty includes having a say over her internal organs instead of the federal government. Conservative justices think the scope of personal liberty does not include one's internal organs, and that this is the position that represents the strict Constitutional interpretation of liberty.
Progressive justices believe in the First Amendment; they are more likely to support individuals over the government regarding the right to assemble, and more likely to protect freedom of religion by upholding separation of church and state. Conservative justices are not.
Progressive justices believe in the Fourth Amendment; they are more likely to protect the rights of the individual against illegal search and seizure. Conservative justices are not.
Progressive justices believe in Equal Protection Under The Law; they are more likely to protect the individual from being treated unfairly by powerful entities such as corporations and government. Conservative justices are not.
That's actually putting it too charitably; conservative justices oppose those principles fervently.
The bottom line is that the people who use the term "liberal activist judges" simply hate the most basic core aspects of the Constitution they proclaim to be so loyal to: the first amendment, fourth amendment, equal protection under the law, and the basic right to liberty to which we are all entitled.
If they only they could just get rid of those things - get us to be a Christian nation where people don't cause problems with their hippie protests about government detentions, where the downtrodden need no help from the courts because equal protection is just writing on paper anyway and we dare not interfere with the natural order, and where the scope of your personal liberty doesn't extend to all your body parts - then, only in that fascist authoritarian society would the Constitution finally be adhered to.
The only thing that is more batshit insane than that bizarro world reasoning is the fact that this meme has been repeated in the news media non-stop and unchallenged.
Perhaps just as striking - but in the good way - is that killing the meme is so perfectly, satisfyingly simple: the next time anyone uses the phrase "liberal activist judge", ask them if staying true to the Constitution includes the first amendment, the fourth amendment, equal protection under the law, or the basic right to personal liberty, because those are principles that progressive justices have consistently defended and conservative justices have consistently attacked. To argue that personal liberty does not involve internal organs is the more controversial position, not the strict Constitutional position; to argue that basic rights of due process are not required is the more controversial position, not the strict Constitutional position.
So, to recap, which kind of judge is adhering strictly to the Constitution, and which is the activist?
Hey, how about this crazy idea?
The type of justice who obeys the Constitution is the one who is adhering to it strictly, and the type of justice who fights its basic principles at every turn is the activist judge.