Judicial Activism? - One More Alito Thought

CNN reported this:

Alito said following precedent is "very important," and "special justification" would be needed to overturn previous decisions.

Then, in the same article, CNN reported this:

Feinstein pressed for examples of what would qualify as a "special justification."

Alito responded by citing scenarios in which a rule "is proven to be unworkable" or when "changes in the situation in the real world can call for the overruling of a precedent."

"Situations" in the "real world" can call for striking down a precedent?

It would seem this statement by Alito should make conservatives squirm. Hasn't the complaint lodged against "liberal" justices been that they are too eager to make rulings to address "real world" "situations"? Haven't conservatives complained that "liberal" justices impose their own views of society on others rather than looking to the Constitution and the framers' intentions to discover how the document should apply today?

Of course, conservatives aren't squirming, since they take this as code meaning that Alito will affirm his pro-life credentials by voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.