This is a valid point. One person's judicial activism is another person's "correct interpretation" of the law.
The other thing to remember is that most judges, regardless of political leanings, realize that overturning precedent is a big deal. In fact, overturning past precedent, especially precedent that has been around for several years, is itself a form of judicial activism that disrupts the legal system.
Finally, people who are either worried or excited, depending on political leanings, about the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade are in for a surprise. First, a case that may implicate that decision must reach the USSC. Second, overturning Roe will not make abortion illegal -- no court, not even the USSC, can make new criminal laws.
Overturning Roe will simply allow the states to pass laws on the matter. I think any attempt by Congress to legislate the matter would raise a Commerce Clause issue, and even a conservative jurist would recognize that abortion is not a federal matter.
Lastly, even if a state passes laws on the matter, that state's supreme court could declare that the law violates the state constitution. So, no one needs to hold their breath over this upcoming nomination.