Judicial Activism v. Judicial Restraint

Judicial review has been in effect for a long time now and is part of the judicial process in the U.S. However, I agree with some of my classmates that judicial restraint should be practiced rather than judicial activism. Judicial review is another form of checks and balances, but to what extent? If Congress and the President both vote for a bill to be passed, and the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, is it safe to assume that the majority of Congress and the President are all wrong? This kind of assumption is what makes me think that the Supreme Court should practice judicial restraint. If the Supreme Court issues too many rulings against bills or actions that have been taken by other branches of government then it sends the wrong message to the people - presumably that the other branches are not doing their jobs and are possibly incompetent. I know that my last statement is extreme, and I'm not saying that judicial review should be overturned. If for some reason issues fall through the cracks without being properly debated, then I think it is the Supreme Court's right to step in and say that those decisions are wrong. I just feel that the Supreme Court needs to be very careful in assessing rulings that affect previous decisions made by other branches of government.