Trebuchet:

It seems to me that in order for the Judicial Branch to be part of the Federal Government as a check and balance to the Executive and Legislative branches, it would have to be involved in changing the law on some level, and anyone that is a critic of that change can easily determine that is activism. And just as easily determine it is not, if they change their mind.

If you want to talk about activism in the last eight years, how about the executive branch? Writing signing statements that effectively invalidated legislation that they opposed? How about making binding legal interpretations of torture and then keeping those decisions secret from the other two branches and the general public?

Activism indeed!

The short summary of the roles of the three branches we all learned around fifth grade seems useful here: the legislature enacts the laws; the executive enforces the laws; and the judicairy interprets the laws. The judiciary's checks on the other two branches are ensuring that the legislature does not enact laws that violate the Constitution and that the executive does not enforce laws in a manner inconsistent with how they were written. In a republican government, unelected judges should not have a role in making law, but only in ensuring that the laws made by the elected branches are complied with.

Your last paragraph is a distracting non-sequitur. If by activism, you mean changing the law, it's precisely the job of the democratic branches of government to change the law. If they do so in a way that the electorate doesn't like, they are subject to electoral defeat; if they seek to change the law in an improper manner, they are subject to other legal sanctions.