Do you want a "judicial activist" appointed to the SC? Or one that respects "stare decisis"?
Pretty easy question!
That's a false dichotomy. Those who worship at the alter of
stare decisis aren't the opposite of judicial activists. One who favors the ruling in Roe v Wade, for example, would be an example of a judicial activism proponent, since that decision essentially created law without regard for the limits of the Constitution. These activists appeal to
stare decisis as a mechanism for
preserving activist decisions. A strict constructionist, to the contrary, would oppose
stare decisis to the extent that it interfered with overturning the judicial activist rule created in Roe v Wade.
