The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, and since that time, only 27 Amendments have been made to it. Perhaps that is a good thing, perhaps that is not, but it certainly demonstrates that making Amendments to that Constitution, is fairly prohibitive. Yet, during all of those ensuing years, all sorts of meaningful changes have been made to the real world application of that Constitution in regards to its citizens, of which a significant amount of those changes have been made by essentially judicial fiat. That is to say, rather than amending the Constitution to cover such salient things such as the legal definition of marriage, or of abortion, or of many other important issues, the Supreme Court has rendered their decision upon questions of great merit, that subsequently takes on the aura of Constitutional law, without said Amendment apparently ever being required or necessary.
The most fundamental problem with any activist court, is that when that tribunal believes it has the power to effectively amend the Constitution, through its own interpretation of such, then the law so created, has more to do with the opinions and viewpoints of that time, and less to do with what has been written down, legislated, and certified to be the highest law of this land. In other words, it is the responsibility of legislatures to enact laws, and of the judicial courts to determine the Constitutionality of such laws, but what has effectively occurred, in recent times, is that the judicial branch has by their court decisions, effectively enacted laws, without legislative oversight or approval, and all of this is occurring, without the people having a true voice or say upon the matter, of which this government theoretically derives its just powers, from the consent of those so governed.
The more activist any court is, and the more that court simply does what it so desires to do, with the notion that they are essentially making new law, with the incumbent belief that they are performing their duties in a positive way, the less that Constitution as written is relevant to the law as it is effectively exercised upon the people that are subject to it. So that, what we find that occurs is that rather than the people being governed by Constitutional law, the people are governed instead by a tribunal that interprets however that it so desires that Constitution to be interpreted, of which the net result is to favor some at the expense of the many; and to invariably favor those that are the actuators of those eminent judicial personages.
There is a Constitution, of which, as the highest law of this land, it can be utilized as the law; or it can be circumvented by those that through their judicial opinions become in essence, the new living law. Further to the point, the more laws that are created by the judicial branch, through the proclivities of that branch, thereby creates what is effectively an alternate constitution, of which that constitution, becomes in effect, whatever that judicial branch, so desires it to be, so that equality under the law, equally applied, has morphed instead into specific favoritism for those that have influence, at the expense of all those, that do not.