I identify as a textualist and judicial conservative. Textualism is the form of interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of the text of statutes and the Constitution. In some cases, if there has been a change in meaning over the years, I believe that we must look backwards. In essence, that means reading the text of the constitution through an originalist lens. Originalists believe that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law.
Some judges develop a philosophy of activism, using the bench to enact social and political change. I practice a philosophy of restraint, believing that judges must interpret the law strictly rather than seek to make new laws. Judicial activists seek to change, or perhaps even create legislation from the bench. I do not believe that the role of a judge is to create legislation; rather, I believe judges should be responsible for interpreting laws created by the legislature and determining if they are constitutional.