If one party isn't engaging in 'judicial activism' it's only because they aren't in a position to, so it's not exact fair to blame that on one side. The minute the other side is in a position to do so, they will. And then the folks on their side will suddenly not see it as judicial activism anymore. That's the real problem.

BTW, what's an example of people being forced to do something that they disagree with by the courts? And I mean here an example where what they are being forced to do isn't something like respect the rights of others, not discriminate, etc... Of course the court clearly forced a lot of people to stop setting quotas on Jews, to let blacks go to the colleges they want, to stop preventing women from having the same opportunities as men, etc...

But I would not count those as people being forced to do something that they disagree with. I would count those as people being forced to observe the law and the spirit of our Constitution. That's not judicial activism, that's doing what the courts were put in place to do, to act as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority (and its law making advantage) among other things.