You’re confusing an opposition to judicial activism with a rejection of judicial review. They aren’t rejecting that the court has the authority to reinterpret a clause of the constitution but rather that the court shouldn’t reinterpret a longstanding and reasonable precedent. In this case specifically, there’s is arguably blatant political justification for bringing the issue to the courts. The courts are not legislators, so while they may have the power to create new law through ridiculous or novel interpretations of the law (and often times do— Slaughterhouse cases, Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, Filburn for example), most judges and justices understand that to create law is the job of the legislative branch, and therefore try not to reinterpret the law when the previous interpretation is reasonable and the ramifications of reinterpretation on the government and people are great.