LTE: Clarence Thomas has an agenda. Isn't that judicial activism?

To the editor: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should reevaluate decisions that recognized the rights to gay marriage and contraception. So justices can have an "agenda" to target rights? I always believed they were to be neutral, waiting for cases to be presented and then evaluating them in relation to the Constitution.

The conservative justices seem to have their minds already made up and are encouraging cases to be brought before them.

For example, they could have merely ruled on the Mississippi case and left the Roe vs. Wade in place. But by a 5-4 majority, they chose to go beyond the Mississippi case to nullify the nearly 50-year-old constitutional right to an abortion.

This sounds like an agenda, and the three newly installed justices deceived Congress regarding this. When does the deception end?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/letters-editor-clarence-thomas-agenda-100002292.html