Well, I'm not sure how you got there from what I posted however.... On abortion, check his appeal vote on Garza v Hargan. "In his opinion, Judge Kavanaugh emphasized the government’s “permissible interests” in “favoring fetal life” and “refraining from facilitating abortion.” On the 2nd, check his dissent on Heller v DC. "Kavanaugh's recent minority dissent, when the D.C. Circuit panel's majority upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic rifles and its registration requirement for all guns in D.C, was a positive sign." I have no idea what your personal parameters are regarding "everything else". If you are a true Constitutionalist, then IMO, you are wasting time on front-burner, media-popular issues like abortion, gay rights, freedom of religion, etc because they are more about judicial philosophy and represent a very small amount of the Supreme Court case load. A good judge need not have strong political interests or motives. They need to know what law applies, the facts based on admissible evidence that formed the record in the case, and what arguments were used by the lawyers in each case. None of the current justices are either strict constitutionalists OR conservatives, conservatives in the sense of reducing the role of judges in favor of granting more responsibility to the legislative and executive branches. Kavanaugh will likely align with those justices who more often favor the constitutional process and that would be Thomas and Gorsuch. "In a dissenting opinion on the court of appeals in 2008, which was eventually vindicated in the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that analysis must “begin with the constitutional text and the original understanding, which are essential to proper interpretation of our enduring Constitution.” If Kavanaugh is approved, his vote whether to hear Gundy v Unites States will be a good indication whether or not he's going to be more of an activist judge or more of a constitutionalist. What might make you happy is what seems to be his thought process on executive orders.... "in his 2016 Harvard Law Review article, described the Chevron doctrine as “n many ways…nothing more than a judicially orchestrated shift of power from Congress to the Executive Branch,” although he said that the doctrine might make sense “in certain circumstances” when statutory cases really involve policy (which he does not think is the business of the courts) rather than law. Even if he does not align with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, a substantial rollback of this Chevron deference doctrine is quite possible, with a resultant substantial rollback in executive administrative power. " I think it's important to note that it's not really about just ONE justice. They vote in blocks based in part of their philosophy of application. Scalia and Kennedy agreed only 82% of the time. Ginsberg, Scalia, and Thomas all sided together in dissent on Jones v Unites States where, "three petitioners were convicted by jury of dealing very small amounts of crack cocaine and acquitted on a charge of conspiracy to distribute drugs. But the sentencing judge essentially ignored the latter acquittal and imposed a prison term that, according to the petitioners, exceeded the guidelines for the dealing conviction alone." "Scalia wrote that the Supreme Court had declined to hear similar cases too many times previously. The lower courts, he wrote, "have uniformly taken our continuing silence to suggest that the Constitution does permit otherwise unreasonable sentences supported by judicial fact-finding....."This has gone on long enough," At the end of the day, it appears to me that Kavanaugh is very close to fitting what you want.