He absolutely was not. He was an advocate of interpreting original intent to align with his bigoted social and religious views, voting accordingly, and averting

He absolutely was not. He was an advocate of interpreting original intent to align with his bigoted social and religious views, voting accordingly, and averting responsibility by acting as though he was merely honoring the intent. When that play wasn't available, he was a fan of playing the "states rights" card. Truly remarkable were his mental gymnastics allowing him to justify his activism as one of the above. Perhaps his strongest performance was his conclusion that money is speech, corporations are people, and therefore corporations are not to be limited in using their cash for political influence. But he helped the Koch brothers with fundraising, who were the biggest beneficiaries of that decision, so clearly he had to convince himself that what he decided made sense somehow. Unsurprisingly, he can barely maintain that position with a straight face when confronted head on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgQGJjQq4uk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgQGJjQq4uk Anonymous money via a corporate entity isn't a problem because "the reporters can find out" and the amount of money spent to influence politics is insignificant because "we probably spend more on cosmetics anyway". People really look up to this guy?