Oh, I absolutely agree that at times those on the right cry judicial activism when none has been conducted.
However, you have seemingly decided that rather than act differently then them and speak objectively you will simply mirror them in stereotyping and utilizing hyperbole to wrongfully paint any and everything said by a conservative on the issue as being a lie or misrepresentation and that in reality any conservative talking about it must REALLY believe that judicial activisim is just things they dislike.
Cpwill's statement, even if you disagree with it, at least sought to put forward a legitimate definition and line in regards to what judicial activism is in his opinion and gave a fair explanation of it. Essentially his view seems to be that "Judicial Activism" is a process in which judges put forth an affirmative argument that the consitution infers or states something that it doesn't clearly indicate and uses that affirmative argument as the basis for its ruling.
If the court was to rule that the mandate was not constitution, this case would not fit that definition. The courts ruling would not be based on the court finding that there is some constitutional principle not explicately stated in the constitution which inherently disallows the mandate, IE an affirmative argument against it based on a supposed provision of the constitution. Rather, the courts ruling would be based on a negative argument on the part of government that there simply isn't a provision within the constitution that allows them to do such.
While you may disagree with Cpwill's definition of what is or isn't judicial activism, he is clearly and directly stating what the basis for his judgement on the issue is. However, whether than fairly and objectively dealing with his words you've instead chosen to stereotype all conservatives, place that stereotype upon him, and then decree what he "actually" meant through your implications of what his words were stating.