No surprise there, but this is interesting.
Your question is akin to judging the presidency of Ronald Reagan solely on the basis of his decision to sell missiles to Iran in exchange for release of American hostages or his signing of the bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens.
Both of these examples are presented from the perspective of a liberal. Conservatives see neither of them in this light. Conservatives have long regarded the allegation that Reagan traded missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of American Hostages as being an utter and unequivocal lie. Reagan had no power during the time the Hostages were being held, he was just a candidate. Conservatives believe it was his statement that we would go to war with Iran if they were still being held when he took office that convinced the Iranians that Reagan was a man with whom they had better not f**k. The nation was in the mood to smash Iran, and Reagan actually gave it voice at that time.
The missile trading came later, and was spearheaded by Oliver North without Reagan's direct knowledge, and it is not considered a bad thing either. Conservatives love the fact that Oliver North did this, because it DELIBERATELY DEFIED DEMOCRAT TRAITORS in Congress who had cut off Military aid to the Contras in Nicaragua. (Just as they did Aid to South Vietnam)
The Amnesty thing was an agreement reached with Democrats to do something about illegal immigration, and it was not something Reagan wanted to do. (And of course the Democrats never kept up their end of the bargain.)
But Yaaaah! Our Wonderful courts have given us "Gay Marriage"!
I think I’ve already stipulated that you prefer the branches of government headed by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and John Boehner to the branch headed by John Roberts.