Don't downvote the parent - he's just pointing out that meanings of words depend on the context. If you look at it strictly in SCOTUS context, and use the dictionary definition of "conservative" rather than treating it as a partisan political label, a "conservative" judge is the one that tries to introduce as little innovation as possible - i.e. an adherent of originalism and textualism. Conversely, then, a "liberal" judge is the innovator, the one who actively seeks new meanings.

I'm not convinced that "originalism and textualism" is the same thing as "little innovation". The claims of originalists to divine the meaning of the text, and how that meaning applies to new objects and social structures that did not exist at the time, often strike me as remarkably innovative -- in a sense they would find pejorative.

The "conservative" judges votes align extremely well with each other and with the wishes of the political party that nominated them -- which is itself frequently not "conservative" in the sense of "conserving" something. In both cases, the claim to "conservatism" strikes me as having a lot more to do with group identity than any consistent ideology or approach.

That's because we actually do have a partisan SCOTUS, with all that entails. Words like "originalism" and "textualism" - or "living constitution" for that matter - are mostly thrown around to justify certain partisan positions, and ignored with others. I wouldn't consider Scalia to have been an originalist, for example.