Good analysis, except I don't think the court deserves the label "conservative". Because it's not at all conservative to overturn, in decisive non-limited fashion, well-established legal precedent even if these justices would personally have ruled differently back then.

So, originalist--yes (but originalism is a more modern radical doctrine--the founders were not originalists). Limiting the court's power--yes. Small-c conservative? Not really (especially when they're saying that the court cannot use its power to limit the power of legislatures). Big C Conservative, given what big C Conservatives want? Can't tell for certain, but it is consistent.

"I just accidentally took a bunch of important cases that Conservatives wanted decided differently, and decided them all the way they wanted, but honestly it was all an accident that we got those cases" is not very convincing when the court has such wide-ranging discretion over which cases it hears.

However, what they're not doing is simply issuing rulings that favor Conservative positions with no legal basis. They have their ducks in a row for the most part. Except for originalism being rather batty.