Exactly how all members of the court should be and with the exception of the liberals pretty much are.
There are several ways Justices can approach the Constitution and several of them fall into what we often thing of as a "conservative" approach.
Textualism -- not very common, but holds to reading the
exact words there and using the exact definitions of those words. If the writer said "horse" then this applies only to HORSES, period.
Originalism -- more common. Holds to trying to figure out what exact thing the writer meant and applying only that meaning. If the writer said "horse", and that was the means of transportation at the time, this passage applies to means of personal conveyance. So, now it can mean "car."
Strict constructionism -- Constructionism looks at lots of supporting contextual information to determine the overall jist of what the writer was getting at. If the writer was talking about going someplace by horse, then this can be applied today to any mode of transport as it describes the original writer's intention to protect a freedom of travel.
But those interpretative approaches don't seem to be all that predominant today. Many decisions are made with reference to precedent set by other cases. And that's not originalism, at all. And it seems fairly rare to see decisions that look to originalism or construcitonism and ignore the way the Court's own interpretations over the centuries have shaped how we interpret the Constitution (which is called Doctrinalism). So I think it's not quite right to say that only "liberal" Justices are not originalists. Scalia is often cited as an originalist, but how originalist he really was is probably debatable.
We in the gun community (often, at least most of us) love an originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and most of us really enjoy a good constructionist interpretation as well (since you can make the 2nd A out to be even more agreeable if you look at the state of private armaments ownership at the time of its writing).
But it's much more difficult to really REALLY be an originalist all day, every day, in every way. Sort of like claiming to be libertarian. It works GREAT for gun rights, and for lots of other pretty straightforward things. It gets a lot harder to find insight in a strict libertarian viewpoint when trying to sort out a rather vast number of other matters.
We've put a lot of weight behind Gorusch, and pinned a lot of hopes on his seating on the Court. It will be interesting to see how that really goes, how fast and how strictly origininalist. I hope for the very best!
