No.  You're absolutely wrong here.

He was an active part in building the Rethuglican infrastructure that coughed up the hairballs currently sitting in those high offices.  He helped cultivate the careers of the same people who now would appoint him to protect them from the laws.

He and his clients are two sides of the same coin.

"In July [2001], in a case with potentially far-reaching implications for religious liberty and church-state separation, Solicitor General Ted Olson took the unusual step of asking the Supreme Court to take up the Ohio school voucher case. Lower courts have ruled that the program's publicly funded vouchers predominantly benefit religious schools and violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Olson's brief asked the justices to uphold Cleveland's voucher program, and was seen by Court observers as a way for the administration to send a signal to the Court about the importance of the issue to the administration. Religious Right organizations and their political allies hope that the Supreme Court will use the voucher case to radically alter its interpretation of the First Amendment and open the door to a wide range of government funding for religious institutions. "