It's not clear how someone how an origialist or a textualist could be considered a moderate.
The terms moderate, liberal and conservative have no meaning in the judicial arena. They only apply if the person violates their obligations and bases rulings on political ideology rather than the actual law.
We have a legislative branch to write the laws and we have method to amend the constitution, why blur the lines and put the judicial branch into legislative business?
It is not just how one views the original Constitution and Amendments but how one views all the caselaw since then - much of which is based on a liberal interpretation, some seeming to create "law" out of thin air.
IMHO, a moderate would look at all of it as settled law whereas a liberal would look at all of it all as good suggestions.
But a conservative would go back to the original law and make sure everything in between is not merely a house of cards. And if it is, his effort would be to reverse or replace the bad caselaw.