It’s a reasonable analysis but it may fail to take into consideration that there is more than one conservative approach to constitutional exegesis. Likewise with liberal approaches. Conservatives who apply an “original intent” analysis are probably not going to be as friendly to us as “strict constructionists.” And liberals who are progressive are more likely to sympathize under a theory of “evolving standards of decency” analysis than will be liberals who are coming from the more pragmatic social engineering perspective. In sum, we can find friendly assessors on both sides. It just depends on their subset of conservative v. liberal judicial philosophies.