Final answer:
Justice Clarence Thomas believes in interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning and the intentions of its framers.
Step-by-step explanation:
Justice Clarence Thomas believes in interpreting the Constitution according to its clearly implied language. This judicial philosophy is known as originalism. Originalism holds that judges should interpret the Constitution based on what its framers intended and how they would have understood it at the time it was written. Thomas believes that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted and not subject to change or adaptation based on contemporary social needs or interpretations.
Originalism is a conservative judicial philosophy that advocates for a limited interpretation of the Constitution. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to the text of the Constitution and the intentions of its framers. According to originalists like Thomas, the Constitution is a fixed document that should not be subject to broad interpretations or reinterpretations based on current societal norms or political agendas.
For example, if the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, an originalist like Thomas would interpret that right as it was understood at the time of the framing, rather than applying a modern interpretation that takes into account contemporary issues and concerns. This approach focuses on the original meaning of the language used in the Constitution and limits the role of judges in shaping or influencing social or political policy.