There are generally two styles of interpreting the Constitution that are employed by Supreme Court justices: textualism and purposivism.
Textualism is an approach that emphasizes the plain meaning of the Constitution's text and seeks to interpret it in a way that stays faithful to the original intent of the framers. According to this approach, judges should rely on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the Constitution and avoid reading into it any meaning that is not explicitly stated. Textualists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally written and that any changes to it should be made through the amendment process rather than judicial interpretation.
Purposivism, on the other hand, is an approach that focuses on the purpose or underlying values of the Constitution, rather than just the plain text. Purposivists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that advances the underlying goals and values that the framers intended to achieve. This approach takes into account the historical context in which the Constitution was written and considers how modern circumstances may require a different interpretation.
While these two approaches may seem to be at odds with each other, in practice, many Supreme Court justices use a combination of both textualism and purposivism when interpreting the Constitution. Justices may also take into account other factors, such as precedent, the practical implications of a decision, and their own personal values and beliefs.
Please note that copying someone else's work without proper citation is plagiarism. While my response provides helpful information, please write your answer in your own words and make sure to properly paraphrase and cite any information you use from this response or any other sources to avoid plagiarism.
~~~Harsha~~~